/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/181022.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, October 22, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 211
Headlines
110 BEDFORD REST: Sanchez Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum, OT Wages
665 9TH AVE: Rivera Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
ABBVIE INC: Nov. 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ABBVIE INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: $9.6M Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval
ACCENTCARE INC: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Snell Suit Says
ACCESSIBLE RECOVERY: Chriss-Guy Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ACE CASH EXPRESS: Gonzales Sues Over Illegal Account Debiting
ACNE CORP: Faces Figueroa Suit in New York Under ADA
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Class Certification Sought in Voeks Suit
ARDIAN CORP: Avila Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ARIZONA BEVERAGE: "No Preservatives" Label Deceptive, Says Kubiluis
AT&T MOBILITY: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in LoCurto Suit
BANG FAMILY: Cortez Suit Asserts FLSA Violation
BROTHERS MOTHERS: Seeks Approval of Buckler Suit Notice Procedures
BUFFALO TROTTING: Mendez Suit Alleges ADA Violation
CALLINGPOST COMMUNICATIONS: Gallion Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
CANADA: Membertou Day School Survivors to Get Class Action Update
CASINO RAMA: McCarthy Tetrault Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Nov. 19 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
COMPUTER CREDIT: Labella Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
CONN'S APPLIANCES: Edwards Files TCPA Suit in Nevada
COOK COUNTY, IL: Squeo Files Suit Over Suspension Without Pay
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Prelim Approval of Gonzalez Deal Denied
CORECIVIC: Leavenworth Taping Class Action Can Proceed
CSX CORP: Faces Class Action Over Hurricane Florence Flooding
DESERT PALMS: Lawsuit Alleges Bed Bug Infestation in Apartments
DIAMOND PERFECTION: Flores Sues Over Filtration System Warranty
DIMENSION DATA: Bentford Sues Over Illegal Confidentiality Pacts
DM FENCE: Medina Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
EDUCATION REALTY: Denies Allegations in Scarantino and Frank Suits
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Jeffries FCRA Suit in Texas
ESSENDANT INC: Plumley Challenges Merger With Staples' Affiliates
EVENTBRITE INC: Faces Kloss Suit in Illinois Over Data Breach
EXPRESS MESSENGER: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, Oldenburg Says
FACEBOOK INC: Content Moderator Files Class Action in California
FLOWERS FOODS: Booth Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
FORD MOTOR: Directed to Pay $720K to Thai Customers
FORSTER & GARBUS: Page Files Suit in New York Under FDCPA
FOUR PARTNERS: Howard Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
GALILEE: Funeral Homes Not Responsible for Mishandled Bodies
GAMMA HEALTHCARE: Keaton Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GEORGIA: Faces Civil Rights Class Action
GRAY TELEVISION: Cellino & Barnes Sues Over Air-time Price-Rigging
GREEN BANCORP: Bushansky Seeks to Halt Veritex Merger Deal
HCR MANOR: MacRae Seeks to Certify 6 Subclasses
HOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERY: Picon Files Suit Under ADA
HUNTINGWOOD INC: Iturbide Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seeks Dismissal of Baby Wash Class Action
KING OF DIAMONDS: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Woodard Claims
MANSUETO VENTURES: Violates ADA, Sullivan Suit Says
MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Lennen Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclass
MASSACHUSETTS: Merrimack Valley Utility Class Action Mulled
MATTRESS FIRM: McCulloh Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
MCCARTHY BUILDING: Browning Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages
MDL 2543: Jurisdictions Disputes in Ignition Switch Suit Resolved
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Brown Suit Brought Before 5th Circuit
MOBILOANS LLC: Price Files RICO Class Action in Virginia
MRS BPO: Faces Melnikov FDCPA Suit in New York
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bifulco Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
NAVIENT CORP: Sued by Hyland in S.D.N.Y. for Misleading Borrowers
NAVITUS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Phillips Says
NCINO INC: Faces Sullivan ADA Suit in New York
NEW YORK: Boyd Suit Asserts Prisoner Civil Rights Breach
NEW YORK: Crosby Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Bhattacharya Suit Alleges SEC Violation
NIKE CORP: Current Worker Joins Suit Alleging Gender Pay Gap
NORDSTROM INC: Sued for Misrepresenting Vintage Rolex Watches
NORTH AMERICAN PUBLISHING: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in New York
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Faces Travel Insurance Class Action in Florida
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Carroll Files FDCPA Suit in California
PNC FINANCIAL: Appeals Decision in McCoy Suit to 3rd Circuit
PRUCO LIFE: Behfarin Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
PURDUE PHARMA: Appeal Unlikely for $20MM Settlement Denial
QVC INC: Faces Bristol County Retirement System's Class Suit
RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RENZENBERGER INC: McConville Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 31
RV CO: Settles WARN Class Action for $1.2MM
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Lil' Man Moves for Certification of 2 Classes
SENIOR LIFESTYLE: Slaaen Seeks to Recover OT Pay for Caregivers
SENTINEL RESOURCES: Gibbs Suit Asserts Usury, RICO Violation
SEVEN-ONE-SEVEN: Wins Approval of Bodie Class Suit Settlement
SONIC CORPORATION: Alcoa Community Credit Union Files Class Action
STORAGE GENIUS: Guerrero Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
STUCKY LAUER: Seeks Final Okay of $6K Settlement in Maloy Suit
SYNUTRA INT'L: Del. High Court Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
TATA MOTORS: Nano Consumer Urged to Consider Class Action
TD AMERITRADE: Krukever Seeks to Certify ES Options Holders Class
TDT CONSULTING: Cervantez Seeks Wages for Hours Worked Over 40
TICKETMASTER: Sued Over Broker Friendly Business Practices
TORONTO HYDRO: St. James Town Residents File Class Action
TRIBUNE MEDIA: Faces Securities Class Action in Illinois
UFC: Former MMA Fighters Submit Final Written Arguments
UNITED STATES: 3rd Cir. Revives FDCPA Suit Over IRS Reporting
UNITED STATES: Court Enters Summary Judgment in Bauer Suit
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Phillips Securities Suit in New Jersey
WEST FOODS: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA and AMWA, Green Says
WIRELESS CONNECTION: Jones Seeks to Recover to Unpaid Back Wages
YOUNGEVITY INT'L: Abante Rooter Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Otero Suit
ZUMIEZ INC: Appeal in Herrera Class Action Underway
[*] U.S. Retail Brokerage Industry Faces Probe Amid Class Actions
*********
110 BEDFORD REST: Sanchez Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum, OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL ANDRE SALAS SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. 110 BEDFORD REST CORP. (D/B/A THE BEDFORD), K
& M CAFE LLC (D/B/A ROEBLING SPORTING CLUB), DADDO BOGICH, MERLE
CHORNUK, SEAN RAWLINSON, and DIEGO DOE, Case No. 1:18-cv-05530
(E.D.N.Y., October 2, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.
110 Bedford Rest Corp. (d/b/a The Bedford) is a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
New York. K & M Cafe LLC (d/b/a Roebling Sporting Club) is a
domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
state of New York. The Individual Defendants serve or served as
owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant
Corporations.
The Defendants own, operate, or control two restaurants located at
110 Bedford Ave., in Brooklyn, New York, under the name "The
Bedford" and at 225 N 8th St., in Brooklyn, under the name
"Roebling Sporting Club."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com
665 9TH AVE: Rivera Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RIVERA, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs v.
665 9TH AVE. RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a Galaxy Cafe, and JOHN PANORIOS,
Case No. 159129/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., October 2,
2018), alleges that pursuant to New York Labor Law, the Plaintiff
is entitled to recover from the Defendants:
(1) unpaid overtime;
(2) unpaid minimum wages;
(3) unpaid compensation for off-the-clock work;
(4) unpaid spread of hours premium;
(5) liquidated damages and statutory penalties; and
(6) attorneys' fees and costs.
665 9th Ave. Restaurant Corp. is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of the state of New York, with a principal
place of business located in New York City. John Panorios is the
Chief Executive Officer of the Corporate Defendant.
The Defendants own and/or operate a restaurant known as Galaxy Cafe
located at 665 9th Avenue, in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
ABBVIE INC: Nov. 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Sept. 24 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against AbbVie Inc. ("AbbVie" or the
"Company") (NYSE: ABBV) in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired AbbVie securities
between October 25, 2013 through September 18, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) AbbVie's strategy to increase the sales growth of its
blockbuster drug, HUMIRA, was through illegal kickbacks and
unlawful sales and marketing tactics; (2) such practices would lead
to heightened scrutiny by State governments and agencies; and (3)
as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
The Complaint also alleges that on September 18, 2018, Bloomberg
reported that "California's insurance regulator is suing AbbVie
Inc., alleging that the pharmaceutical giant gave illegal kickbacks
to health-care providers in order to keep patients on its
blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira." The report further
stated that, according to the California Department of Insurance,
"[t]he company 'engaged in a far-reaching scheme including both
classic kickbacks -- cash, meals, drinks, gifts, trips, and patient
referrals -- and more sophisticated ones -- free and valuable
professional goods and services to physicians to induce and reward
Humira prescriptions.'"
On this news, AbbVie stock fell $4.35 per share, or over 4.5%, over
two consecutive trading days to close at $91.02 per share on
September 19, 2018, damaging investors.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the November 20, 2018
lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
ABBVIE INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
AbbVie Inc. (NYSE: ABBV) from October 25, 2013 through September
18, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for AbbVie investors under the federal securities
laws.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) AbbVie's strategy to
increase the sales growth of its blockbuster drug, HUMIRA, was
through illegal kickbacks and unlawful sales and marketing tactics;
(2) such practices would lead to heightened scrutiny by State
governments and agencies; and (3) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
20, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1417.html
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen—firm.
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Zachary Halper, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Website: www.rosenlegal.com
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: $9.6M Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended August 4, 2018, that the U.S. District Court of California
has granted preliminary approval of the proposed $9.6 million
settlement agreement in one of the class action lawsuits filed
against the company in the U.S. federal district court in
California.
The Company is a defendant in certain other class action lawsuits
filed by former associates of the Company. These lawsuits,
currently assigned to the same judge in a U.S. District Court in
California, allege non-exempt hourly associates of the Company were
not properly compensated, in violation of federal and California
law, for call-in practices requiring associates to engage in
certain pre-shift activities in order to determine whether they
should report to work and the Company's alleged failure to pay
reporting time pay and all wages earned at termination.
In addition, these lawsuits include derivative claims alleging
inaccurate wage statements and unfair competition under California
state law on behalf of non-exempt hourly associates. One of these
lawsuits was mediated and the parties involved have signed a $9.6
million settlement agreement, and on August 13, 2018, a U.S.
District Court in California granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement.
Abercrombie & Fitch said, "The ultimate settlement is subject to
final approval by the U.S. District Court of California and could
be subject to appeal from class members, objection from class
members or revocation of the settlement agreement under certain
circumstances. A final approval hearing is set to occur in the
fourth quarter of Fiscal 2018."
Abercrombie & Fitch Co., through its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer. The Company operates in two segments, Hollister
and Abercrombie. It offers apparel, intimates, personal care
products, and accessories for men, women, and kids under the
Hollister, Abercrombie & Fitch, abercrombie kids, and Gilly Hicks
brand names. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. was founded in 1892 and is
headquartered in New Albany, Ohio.
ACCENTCARE INC: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Snell Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
VEATTA SNELL, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated
Persons v. ACCENTCARE, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00478 (E.D. Tex.,
October 2, 2018), alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to properly compensate the Plaintiff
and class members for work performed in the employ of the
Defendant.
Accentcare, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Dallas, Texas. AccentCare provides post-acute healthcare services
to individuals with chronic conditions. The Company offers
services ranging from personal and non-medical care to skilled
nursing, rehabilitation, hospice, and care management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
Houston, TX 77018
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
vijay@buenkerlaw.com
ACCESSIBLE RECOVERY: Chriss-Guy Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tempest Chriss-Guy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Accessible Recovery Services,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01277 (W.D. Pa., September 25,
2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
interest and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
Defendant is an insurance company where Chriss-Guy worked as an
insurance associate. He regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, without receiving overtime compensation, says the
complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
2500 Gulf Tower
707 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918
Tel: (412) 281-7229
Email: arihn@peircelaw.com
- and -
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St. NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Tel: (202) 470-3520
Fax: (202) 800-2730
Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
ACE CASH EXPRESS: Gonzales Sues Over Illegal Account Debiting
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ace Cash Express, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-08276, (C.D. Cal., September 25, 2018),
seeks damages, restitution, and all other relief resulting from
unjust enrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act.
Sometime in September 2017, Plaintiff obtained a loan from Ace Cash
and provided her debit account information for the purposes of
automatically debiting her account to make payments on the account
upon signing up for the loan.
After a month, Gonzales then requested to stop the automatic debit
facility, thereby revoking consent for such withdrawals. However,
despite her clear revocation of authorization, Ace Cash continued
to deduct funds from her account. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
ACNE CORP: Faces Figueroa Suit in New York Under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acne Corp. The case
is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Acne Corp. doing business as: Acne
Studios, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09538 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 17,
2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Acne Corp. designs and retails apparels. The Company offers coats,
shoes, jeans, dresses, sweatshirts, suit jackets, and accessories.
Acne Corporation serves customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Class Certification Sought in Voeks Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Voeks, Joseph Fote, Troy Norton, and Marlene Kanehl move the
Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the
lawsuit styled JULIE VOEKS, JOSEPH FOTE, TROY NORTON, and MARLENE
KANEHL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. ALLIED INTERSTATE, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01567-WED (E.D. Wisc.),
and further ask that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant them (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.
Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiffs assert, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).
To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").
While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiffs tell the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017). The Plaintiffs assert that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).
The Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, they contend.
As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiffs argue.
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
ARDIAN CORP: Avila Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Velasco Avila, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Ardian Corp. dba Taverna Kyclades et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-04795 (E.D. N.Y., August 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages under Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a busboy for
Defendants' "Taverna Kyclades" restaurant located at 33-07 Ditmars
Boulevard, Astoria, New York 11105, in or about April 2009. The
Plaintiff's employment was terminated by Individual Defendant
Aardian Skenderi on May 28, 2017.
The Defendants operate an enterprise comprised of three Greek
restaurants under the common trade name "Taverna Kyclades" in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
William Brown, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
ARIZONA BEVERAGE: "No Preservatives" Label Deceptive, Says Kubiluis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LUKAS KUBILIUS, VANESSA KAILEY, and MAKAYLO VAN PEEBLES, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. ARIZONA BEVERAGE
COMPANY LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-09075 (S.D.N.Y., October 3, 2018), is
a consumer protection action seeking redress for, and a stop to,
the Defendant's alleged unfair and deceptive practice of
advertising and marketing its Arizona beverages as having "No
Preservatives."
Defendant's "No Preservatives" representations are deceptive
because Arizona beverages contain the preservatives citric acid
and/or ascorbic acid, the Plaintiffs allege. The Plaintiffs
contend that this labeling deceives consumers into believing that
they are receiving healthier, preservative-free beverages, but the
Defendant's products do not live up to these claims.
Arizona Beverage Company LLC is a corporation organized under the
laws of New York with its principal place of business located in
Woodbury, New York.
The Defendant develops, markets Products throughout the United
States. The Products are available at numerous retail and online
outlets, including Target, Stop & Shop and Amazon.com.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
AT&T MOBILITY: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in LoCurto Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant AT&T Mobility Services LLC filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled LoCurto v. AT&T Mobility Services
LLC, Case No. 13-cv-4303 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2013).
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 8, 2018, the
District Court issued an Opinion and Order granting the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification in the case.
Plaintiff Lisa LoCurto brought the putative class and collective
action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees
of the Defendant alleging that the Defendant failed to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.
The class consists of:
Current and former employees of AT&T Mobility Services, LLC
(AT&T) who performed any work as a Retail Account Executive
(RAE) for AT&T in either New York State or New Jersey at any
time beginning on June 20, 2007 and thereafter through the
entry of final judgment in this case (the Class Period), and
who worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a given work
week and who have not been paid all wages owed to them,
including overtime premiums, in violation of the New York
Labor Law and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (the Class),
with the exception of RAEs who: (a) agreed to arbitrate
their overtime claims with Defendant; (b) settled their
State law overtime claims with Defendant that accrued during
the Class Period; or (c) annually earned during the Class
Period compensation (including base salary and commissions)
of $100,000 or more, which includes at least $455/week paid
on a salary basis.
The appellate case is captioned as AT&T Mobility Services LLC v.
LoCurto, Case No. 18-2947, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent Lisa LoCurto, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael Alan Saffer, Esq.
MANDELBAUM SALSBURG, P.C.
3 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 736-4600
E-mail: msaffer@lawfirm.ms
Defendant-Petitioner AT&T Mobility Services LLC is represented by:
Patrick William Shea, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 318-6405
E-mail: patrickshea@paulhastings.com
BANG FAMILY: Cortez Suit Asserts FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit asserting a Fair Labor Standards Act
violation has been filed against Bang Family, Inc.
The case is styled as Elias Salvador Cortez individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bang Family, Inc.
doing business as: Charlie's Place, Yong C Bang, Bang C Wong,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-09475 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 16, 2018).
Bang Family, Inc. is a restaurant that serves Korean BBQ which is
located at 320 Bergen Blvd, Fairview, NJ 07022, United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
BROTHERS MOTHERS: Seeks Approval of Buckler Suit Notice Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit entitled JUSTIN A. BUCKLER and LONDON
MORTON, Individually and on behalf of other employees similarly
situated v. BROTHERS, MOTHERS & OTHERS CORPORATION d/b/a CYPRESS
GRILLE, Case No. 5:17-cv-00603-OLG-RBF (W.D. Tex.), jointly file
with the Court their Agreed Motion for Approval of Notice to
Potential Class Members.
The parties have reached an agreement as to all issues relating to
notice. Based on this agreement, the parties jointly ask the Court
to issue an Order approving of these proposed notice procedures:
a. Approve the proposed Notice and Consent forms, attached to
the Motion;
b. Ordering that the Defendants will produce the following
information in electronic format: the names, all known
addresses, all known phone numbers, all known e-mail
addresses, and dates of employment for all class members
employed from June 25, 2015 to the present;
c. Approving the delivery by the Plaintiffs' counsel of said
notices to class members via First Class Mail and by
electronic mail. The Plaintiffs' counsel will pay the
up-front charges for said notice (postage, copying, etc.).
The Plaintiffs' counsel may hire, if necessary, a
third-party class action administration company to conduct
the actual mailing of the notice and forms;
d. Approving the use of electronic signature provider Adobe
E-Sign to allow putative class members to execute their
consent forms electronically;
e. Giving class members 60 days from the date is sent to them
to opt into the lawsuit; and
f. Approving a second notice to be sent 30 days prior to the
deadline to opt-in only to those individuals who have not
opted in to the lawsuit.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher McKinney, Esq.
THE MCKINNEY LAW FIRM, P.C.
110 Broadway Street, Suite 420
San Antonio, TX 78205
Telephone: (210) 832-0932
Facsimile: (210) 568-410
E-mail: chris@themckinneylawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Richard W. Espey, Esq.
Dennis Moore, Esq.
ESPEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
13750 San Pedro Avenue, Suite 730
San Antonio, TX 78232-4375
Telephone: (210) 404-0333
Facsimile: (210) 404-0336
E-mail: respey@lawespey.com
dmoore@lawespey.com
BUFFALO TROTTING: Mendez Suit Alleges ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Himelda Mendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Buffalo Trotting Association, Inc. dba Fairgrounds,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07700 (S.D. N.Y., August 23, 2018), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against the Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people.
The Plaintiff is a resident of New York, New York. The Plaintiff is
a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.
The Defendant is an Entertainment Venue and Casino that operates
Fairgrounds Casino as well as the Fairgrounds website, offering
features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and
services which Defendant offers in connection with their physical
locations. The Defendant operates Fairgrounds in New York, at 5600
McKinley Parkway, Hamburg, NY 14075. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
- and -
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003-2461
Tel: (212) 228-9795
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
CALLINGPOST COMMUNICATIONS: Gallion Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Gallion, indvidually and on behalf of all and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Callingpost Communications, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02065 (C.D. Cal., September 25, 2018),
seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs and such other
relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Gallion claims to have received numerous SMS advertisements from
Callingpost promoting their text messaging service. He did not give
his consent to receive such. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
CANADA: Membertou Day School Survivors to Get Class Action Update
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Ayers, writing for CBC News, reports that survivors of the
Membertou Indian day school in Cape Breton are getting an update on
a new class action lawsuit.
Lawyers will be on hand this month to provide information for
anyone wanting to join the action.
The federal government and churches that ran residential schools
settled a lawsuit with survivors in 2006.
Earlier this year, the Federal Court certified another class action
on behalf of survivors of the day school system.
Gowling (Canada) WLG, which represents plaintiffs in the class
action, says on its website that most of the day schools were run
by the same church groups that ran residential schools, and that
students reported suffering the same types of abuse.
Membertou was one of many reserves across the country that had an
Indian day school, said Sen. Dan Christmas.
"There was one at the old Kings Road Reserve ... before it was
moved here in Membertou in 1926, and it stayed in Membertou for all
those decades," he said.
He attended the school, which closed in the early 1960s. There are
others who are still alive who also went through the Indian day
school, he said.
"I think I was there until about Grade 2 and up to that point, I
remember the experience, and I have to admit that it wasn't very
pleasant for some of us," Sen. Christmas said. "It was a difficult
time.
"I remember the abuse, because I was still a young boy at the time.
I remember some strappings, and [a] teacher grabbing students by
the ears and using the long yardstick. I remember some of that. I
also remember some of the verbal abuse, so that sticks in my
mind."
While it wasn't as horrific as residential schools, there were
similarities, he said.
"Those of us that lived on the reserves during those times
certainly remember it, because that's where we went through, but by
far the worst suffering was for those who had to go away and go to
residential schools," Christmas said.
"That was a horrible, horrible experience, but that's not to say
the schools on the reserve, the Indian day schools, that there
wasn't abuse there as well, and I think that's what the lawsuit is
about.
"There were a number of people who didn't go to residential school,
who remained on Indian day schools in their own community, and they
suffered abuse, too."
Membertou school was federally run
The Membertou school was a one-room building run by the federal
government, with a single teacher and students up to Grade 3, said
Christmas.
After that, students went into the public school system in Sydney,
he said.
Some Membertou residents approached Christmas for more information
after learning about the class action suit, so he decided to bring
the law firm to the community, he said.
Gowling lawyers will be in Membertou at 2 p.m. on Oct. 11 to talk
to anyone who wants to join.
Details on that session, such as the location, are still being
worked out. [GN]
CASINO RAMA: McCarthy Tetrault Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carole J. Piovesan, Esq. -- cpiovesan@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy
Tetrault LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that in the
recent decision Kaplan v. Casino Rama Services Inc., 2018 ONSC
3545, the Ontario Superior Court ordered the defendants to produce
excerpts of reports prepared by the forensic experts who conducted
an investigation following a data breach. The Court held that the
defendants waived privilege over the documents by relying on the
findings of the expert reports in opposition to the plaintiffs'
certification application.
Facts
The representative plaintiffs brought a class action against CHC
Casinos Limited, Casino Rama Services Inc., and Ontario Lottery and
Gaming Corporation (the "defendants") after a cyber-attack was
announced by Casino Rama Resort on November 10, 2016. CHC, which
operates Casino Rama, notified approximately 200,000 individuals of
the cyber-attack.
The Defendants filed an affidavit in response to the certification
motion. That affidavit included references to Mandiant, a third
party cybersecurity company hired to conduct an investigation on
the cyber-attack, as well as all supporting documentation prepared
by and provided to Mandiant in the course of its investigation.
Mandiant provided two reports to CHC and its counsel which
summarized Mandiant's observations, findings and opinions arising
out of the attack, and outlined remediation activities. According
to the affidavit, the reports advised that many of the individuals
who received notice of the cyber-attack were not affected by the
data breach.
In advance of the affiant's cross-examination, the plaintiffs
brought a motion under section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act 1992
requiring the defendants to produce copies of all of the reports
and supporting documentation "relevant to the size and scope of the
class"[1] that were related to their investigation of the attack.
The defendants argued that the documents were privileged. The issue
before the court on the motion was whether any of the documents
sought by the plaintiffs ought to be produced, and if so, whether
any restrictions or redactions on those documents were necessary.
Decision
Justice Glustein ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, ordering
disclosure of the reports only to the extent that the reports were
relevant to the size and scope of the class. The court held that it
would be unfair to accept the defendants' evidence on the size and
scope of the prospective class, which was based on the
investigation, without producing the portions of the reports
related to that issue. Furthermore, the affiant chose to rely on
the expert analysis contained in the report, which meant that any
privilege attached to that aspect of the report was waived.
Notably, Justice Glustein did not decide whether the reports in
question were privileged. Instead, he determined that the if the
documents were assumed to be privileged, the defendants waived that
privilege to the extent the reports addressed the size and scope of
the prospective class:
"A party cannot disclose and rely on certain information obtained
from a privileged source and then seek to prevent disclosure of the
privileged information relevant to that issue. Waiver of privilege
would be required as a matter of fairness, but limited only to the
issue disclosed."[2]
Essentially, the Court held that the defendants' reliance on one
portion of the report did not waive privilege for unrelated
portions of the same report.[3] Justice Glustein also considered
the principles of relevance, finding that the affiant's reliance on
the forensic report in relation to the size and scope of the class
was relevant to the certification motion. The Court ordered
disclosure of the forensic reports to the extent they related to
the certification motion.
Justice Glustein also held that the doctrine of proportionality
limited the production to documents that were proportionate to
satisfy the needs of the certification motion and what was
necessary to inform the certification hearing. This limited
production to the relevant excerpts from the reports relating to
the size and scope of the class. Anything more would have been an
"unfair imposition on [the] defendants".[4]
Conclusion
Generally, expert reports obtained through external counsel are
considered privileged and protected from disclosure for litigation
under Rule 31.06(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Privilege
belongs to the client and can be waived implicitly or explicitly.
This case is an example of implicit waiver of that privilege upon
the reliance and disclosure of particular evidence in the class
action litigation context.
This decision highlights the importance of considering how
information in privileged documents is used in data breach class
actions, and the challenge presented in trying to maintain
privilege over documents like forensic reports. Companies should
consider the risk of potentially waiving privilege when disclosing
the findings and reports of forensic experts in litigation arising
from a data breach. Since the Ontario Class Proceedings Act
requires each party to provide the party's best information on the
number of members in the class[5], reliance on the information
obtained by a forensic expert regarding the size and scope of the
class waives any privilege attached to that information. [GN]
COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Nov. 19 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, on Sept. 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Cocrystal Pharma, Inc.
(Nasdaq: COCP) ("Cocrystal" or the "Company") and/or Cocrystal's
predecessor, BioZone Pharmaceuticals, Inc., securities during the
period between September 23, 2013 through September 7, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become
proactively involved in the litigation have until November 19, 2018
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.
If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Cocrystal securities during the Class Period.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.
The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that certain
individuals associated with Cocrystal Pharma were engaged in a
pump-and-dump scheme and the Company failed to abide by U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission's ("SEC") disclosure
regulations.
According to the complaint, following a September 7, 2018 SEC press
release announcing charges for the pump and dump schemes, the value
of Cocrystal Pharma shares declined significantly.
If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Cocrystal securities purchased on or after September 23, 2013
and held through the revelation of negative information during
and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more
about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead
plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower
Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.
Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the
class. [GN]
COMPUTER CREDIT: Labella Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Computer Credit, Inc.
The case is styled as Laurie Labella on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Computer Credit, Inc., John
Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-09410-CS (S.D. N.Y., Oct.
15, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
CCi, an employee-owned, US-based company, provides revenue cycle
services to healthcare organizations and physician groups across
the nation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Karl Jones, Esq.
Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC
555 Fifth Avenue Ste 1700
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (646) 459-7971
Fax: (646) 459-7973
Email: jkj@legaljones.com
CONN'S APPLIANCES: Edwards Files TCPA Suit in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conn's Appliances et
al. The case is styled as Francine Edwards individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Conn's
Appliances, Conn Appliances, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-01998 (D. Nev., Oct. 16, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Conn's Appliances, Inc. is an American furniture, mattress,
electronics and appliance store chain headquartered in The
Woodlands, Texas, United States. It owns and operates a chain of
retail home appliances stores. The company is based in The
Woodlands, Texas. Conn's Appliances, Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of Conns Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francine Edwards, Esq.
201 WEST LIBERTY ST. STE. 207
Reno, NV 89501
Phone: (775) 525-9246
C/O Law Offices of Nicholas M. Porras
United States
PRO SE
COOK COUNTY, IL: Squeo Files Suit Over Suspension Without Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY J. SQUEO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated v. THOMAS J. DART, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Cook County; THE COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S MERIT BOARD; KIM
FOXX, in her official capacity as COOK COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY; and
COOK COUNTY, a unit of local government as joint employer and as
indemnitor, Case No. 2018CH12385 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., October
2, 2018), alleges claims under the Illinois Code of Civil
Procedure, Illinois' Administrative Review Law and the Illinois'
Mandamus Statute.
This is a complaint for judicial review under Illinois' ARL of the
Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board's decision suspending him without
pay for 45 days using the manifest weight and/or clear and
convincing standards, as well as the just and sufficient cause
analysis, Mr. Squeo contends. He asserts that this is also a
complaint under the ARL and Illinois' Civil Practice Act,
pertaining to declaratory judgments based on the Sheriff's unlawful
attempt to suspend him before an invalid and illegal Board that
also had invalid members for at least substantial periods of his
proceedings there.
Thomas J. Dart is a legal adult and the duly-elected Sheriff of
Cook County. The Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board is an
administrative agency. Kim Foxx is a legal adult and the elected
State's Attorney of Cook County, Illinois.
The County is a unit of local government and is a joint employer of
the Plaintiff (as a correctional sergeant) with the Sheriff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cass T. Casper, Esq.
TALON LAW, LLC
79 West Monroe Street, Suite 1213
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 351-2478
Facsimile: (312) 276-4930
E-mail: ctc@talonlaw.com
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Prelim Approval of Gonzalez Deal Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE,
LLC and CORECIVIC, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01891-DAD-JLT
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California denied the Plaintiff's unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement.
The case concerns various wage-and-hour claims brought on behalf of
prison guards and other workers at several of the Defendants'
private prison facilities. The Plaintiff moves for this court's
approval of a global settlement resolving claims brought in both
the lawsuit and another action pending before the Court, Richards
v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-01094-LJO-JLT.
The Plaintiff alleges he was a corrections officer at the
Defendants' privately-operated California City Correctional Center
from April 2011 to Nov. 23, 2013, at which point he was laid off
when the operations of the facility were transferred to the State
of California. He alleges class members were required to pass
through three different security gates and undergo significant
screening, as well as check in with shift supervisors, all prior to
being permitted to clock in at work. Similarly, when leaving at
the end of their shift, the class members were required to clock
out prior to going back through the three security gates.
According to the Plaintiff, this process took approximately 10 to
15 minutes before a shift, and 10 minutes after each shift.
Because of this, the Defendants allegedly failed to appropriately
pay class members both the minimum wage and overtime.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and the
other class members were not permitted to leave their posts for
meal or rest breaks, except to quickly go to the bathroom. Because
the class members regularly worked more than 10 hours in a shift,
they were frequently entitled to at least two meal breaks on
numerous shifts, which were not provided to them. Similarly, the
class members were not permitted to take rest breaks, though
frequently they worked shifts of more than 10 hours, which would
typically afford them three rest breaks. The Plaintiff also seeks
accompanying waiting time penalties and damages for unfair business
practices.
The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The
Plaintiff filed the motion on April 13, 2018. A hearing was held
on the matter on May 15, 2018. Following the hearing, the Court
issued a minute order on May 16, 2018 directing the parties to
filed supplemental briefing within 30 days addressing several
specified topics. The Plaintiff timely filed the supplemental
brief on June 15, 2018.
Judge Drozd finds that the proposed settlement in the case suffers
from several deficiencies. Moreover, because of the lack of
clarity surrounding the value of the claims alleged in the action,
he cannot meaningfully review the substantive fairness of the
settlement. For these reasons, he cannot grant preliminary
approval of the proposed class settlement. There is no one issue
which compels the Court to reach the decision. Rather, numerous
considerations lead the Judge to the conclusion.
Among other things, he finds that (i) the Plaintiff has not
supplied the court any information about what the potential damages
for the FLSA claims are or whether liquidated damages were
awardable; (ii) the estimated value of the substantive claims has
changed throughout the briefing of the pending Motion; (iii) the
overly broad release of claims that have not been litigated,
alleged, or valued, and which class members cannot know the full
extent of, is a deficiency that prevents the Court from approving
the settlement; (iv) the definition of the class and the subclasses
in the initial settlement agreement was inconsistent; and (v) the
inclusion or attempted inclusion of FLSA claims in the settlement
of this case is problematic in numerous ways.
The Judge denied without prejudice the motion for preliminary
approval. He referred back the matter to the assigned magistrate
judge for further scheduling.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 12, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/NjO2CK from Leagle.com.
Jose Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Peter R. Dion-Kindem,
Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C., Adrian R. Bacon, Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C., Jeff Holmes, Jeff Holmes, Esq., Lonnie C.
Blanchard, III -- lonnieblanchard@gmail.com -- The Blanchard Law
Group, APC & Todd M. Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman,
P.C.
CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC & CoreCivic, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Paul M. Gleason -- pgleason@gleasonfavarote.com --
Gleason and Favarote LLP.
CORECIVIC: Leavenworth Taping Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Dan Margolies, writing for KCUR89.3, reports that attorneys
alleging their meetings and phone calls with clients at the
Leavenworth Detention Center were unlawfully recorded can move
forward with a class-action lawsuit, a federal judge ruled last
week.
U.S. District Judge Stephen Bough found that a class action was the
best way to proceed because "(i)t would be judicially uneconomical
for the Court to entertain hundreds if not thousands of
individualized claims" over the same issue.
That issue is whether the private operator of the facility,
CoreCivic, and its provider of telephone and recording services,
Securus Technologies, unlawfully intercepted privileged
attorney-client communications in violation of federal and state
wiretap laws and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
"This has always been a real important case to us in terms of the
underlying implications of constitutional rights and the American
criminal justice system," said Michael A. Hodgson, one of the
attorneys who filed the lawsuit.
"We took this case because of the nature of the privileged
conversations themselves and the importance of the attorney-client
relationship," he added. "So I would say we're cautiously
optimistic and encouraged by the court's ruling. We've got a long
ways to go . . . but this was a great first step in that process."
In his ruling, Judge Bough wrote that he "acknowledges the
importance of the attorney-client privilege and recognizes the
sanctity of what is at stake in the present controversy — public
trust in the legal system and the administration of justice."
Mr. Hodgson said the class certified by Judge Bough could
eventually number as many as 1,000 attorneys.
The case, which was filed in 2016, is one of two class-action
lawsuits spawned by disclosures that privileged attorney-client
phone calls and meetings were recorded at the Leavenworth facility.
The other case was filed on behalf of detainees and is in the midst
of settlement negotiations.
Both suits, which contend the recordings violated federal and state
wiretap laws, have the potential to expose CoreCivic and Securus to
millions of dollars in damages.
A spokeswoman for CoreCivic, the largest private operator of
prisons and detention facilities in the United States, said the
company does not comment on pending litigation.
CoreCivic owns and operates Leavenworth Detention Center, which
houses pre-trial detainees and has more than 1,100 beds.
The company insists it did nothing wrong because it says outgoing
calls subject to recording were preceded by a pre-recorded message
to that effect. But in-person meetings were recorded as well, and
neither clients nor their attorneys were warned that those might
also be recorded.
The recordings first came to light in a criminal case alleging that
guards, inmates and outside parties had smuggled drugs and
contraband into the Leavenworth Detention Center.
U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson, who is overseeing that case,
appointed a special master -- an independent third party -- to
investigate the extent of the problem and whether the recordings
were provided to law enforcement officials and prosecutors.
In court filings, David Johnson, the attorney who filed the class
action case on behalf of attorneys who say they were unlawfully
recorded, says that data provided by Securus show that nearly
19,000 calls to 567 attorneys on a list compiled by the special
master were recorded. And Johnson says that probably understates
the number, since calls were also made to attorneys not on the
special master's list.
More than 1,300 of the recorded calls were between federal public
defenders and their clients. [GN]
CSX CORP: Faces Class Action Over Hurricane Florence Flooding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will Robinson, writing for Jacksonville Business Journal, reports
that citizens of Lumberton, North Carolina filed a class-action
suit on Sept. 24 against Jacksonville-based CSX Corp. (Nasdaq: CSX)
claiming that the railroad's negligence and willful misconduct
caused mass flooding that resulted in evacuations and property
damage. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court, seeks relief of
more than $5 million.
Lumberton's defenses against the Lumber River failed when Hurricane
Florence caused historic flooding across North Carolina --
specifically, they failed at a CSX underpass, where there is a gap
in city levees, according to the suit. A CSX underpass "was a point
of vulnerability" that the city sought to shore up well in advance
of the hurricane's arrival, but CSX refused to allow access, the
suit contends.
"The holdup is that we don't have permission from the railroad to
get on that property and do anything," Lumberton Mayor Bruce Davis
is quoted as saying in the suit.
CSX allegedly failed to attend meetings regarding flood mitigation,
told city officials that it "would consider anyone attempting to
stem the flooding from the underpass to be a trespasser" and
"threatened to sue anyone who tried to place sandbags across the
underpass." On Sep. 14, Governor Roy Cooper issued an emergency
order allowing the city to build a sandbag berm over CSX's
objections.
The berm, installed by volunteers, city officials and National
Guard members, broke around 2 p.m. Sep. 17. CSX had been warned as
early as 2003 by FEMA that sandbagging would be insufficient at the
CSX underpass, which was built at a lower elevation than plans
specified, according to the suit. A 10-foot dike was supposed to be
constructed, according to the North Carolina Emergency Management
Agency and the North Carolina Department of Transportation, but
never was, despite agencies offering $3.5 million to help fund it,
the suit alleges.
Furthermore, Lumberton was flooded through the same underpass in
2016 when Hurricane Matthew passed through North Carolina. NCEMA
estimates that had a permanent wall been erected prior to this,
damage from the floods would have been reduced by 80 percent,
saving 2,000 buildings and $232.6 million. Without the wall,
Matthew caused 1,500 Lumberton residents to be displaced. The
class-action suit contends that the damage caused by Matthew should
have motivated CSX to take action before Florence.
"Their cost-cutting measures were taken with willful, wanton, and
reckless indifference to the economic interests, businesses, and
property of [the litigants]," the suit reads.
A CSX spokesperson noted that Hurricane Florence brought an
unprecedented level of flooding.
"While CSX does not comment on matters before the court, it is
important to point out that Hurricane Florence was an extraordinary
storm that brought record flooding and left many communities
throughout the region devastated including Lumberton," the
spokesperson said in a statement. "CSX has extensive operations in
the impacted communities where so many of our employees, customers
and suppliers call home. Our thoughts are with those impacted by
Hurricane Florence and we remain fully committed to working with
the City of Lumberton to implement a permanent solution."
Also during the storm, a CSX train traveling through Anson County,
North Carolina derailed when it attempted to traverse washed out
tracks. No one was killed; a CSX conductor was taken to a hospital
with minor injuries. [GN]
DESERT PALMS: Lawsuit Alleges Bed Bug Infestation in Apartments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Devine, writing for Las Cruces Sun-News, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed against Desert Palms
Apartments, 2405 W. Picacho Ave., by three former tenants who
allege there is an infestation of bed bugs, rodents and roaches.
According to the lawsuit filed in the Third Judicial District
Court, the former tenants suffered illness; physical, emotional,
psychological and economic damages caused by the apartment
complex's infestation of rodents, roaches, bed bugs, fleas and
ticks.
"I don't think there's a tenant that lives there that won't tell
the same story about infestation either about themselves or their
neighbors that live there," attorney Angel Saenz, Esq. --
saenzlaw@zianet.com -- said. "It's unreasonable to expect that
somehow they got rid of the infestation and then it came back. I
think the logical conclusion is that they never got rid of it. They
never adequately addressed it to the point where people were
getting sick and complaining and now they're coming forward because
they're tired of it."
Erica Olivas, a former tenant, said she resided at the complex for
a year from August 2016 to September 2017 before she finally had
enough and moved out.
Olivas, who is a nursing student at New Mexico State University,
said she lived in the affordable housing complex with her
13-year-old son because she could not afford rent at other
apartments in the area.
"I noticed immediately when I moved in as far as an infestation
with cockroaches. Time and time again I had approached the landlord
about the living situation and how bad they were getting and how
there were just tons of cockroaches in the living room, bedrooms,
it was just everywhere," Olivas said. "It was like pulling teeth
trying to get them. Once they did spray for cockroaches, but they
never still went away. Either they left for a day and came back two
days later. Towards the end of my lease, that's when I had a rat
infestation in my kitchen."
Olivas alleges that rats were living in her stove and apartment
management did nothing about the situation.
"I had asked the landlord to help me with that. My stove was
outside of my apartment until I moved out," Olivas said. "I was not
only living with rats, but also a stove full of rats outside of my
apartment that they refused to take."
Olivas also alleges that she and her son became ill because of the
rodents.
"I didn't realize the rats were living in between my stove. I was
cooking and preparing meals and we were ingesting their feces,"
Olivas said. "My son and I began to fall very ill for several weeks
until I physically saw the stove. My neighbor opened it and they
were living on the sides. I didn't eat there. My refrigerator was
empty because they were crawling into the fridge."
Olivas said her nightmare didn't end there, she said what came next
were bed bugs.
"As the year went on, the infestation got worse. Mattresses and
couches were left for weeks on end in the hot summertime next to
the park where the kids play. They're going to be contaminated,
thus, bringing more bed bugs into the park into the apartments,"
Olivas said. "They (Desert Palm Apartments) refused to help, they
refused to do anything. The landlord was asked many times and they
just basically said I could leave, which is what I did."
Working with tenants
Jeff Curry, who manages the property with JL Gray Company, said he
feels terrible for what the former tenants went through and the
complex is working with tenants who are experiencing issues.
"It's interesting they went straight to the media rather than
filing a suit first and letting us see that," Curry said. "One of
the tenants in the lawsuit did refuse pest control service. So,
we're working with everyone right now. It's never a fun situation.
This is not an issue of being poor or how clean you are. Bed bugs
can come from anywhere. The problem is, with affordable housing
some don't have the means to take care of them themselves. That's
why we always make sure they tell us about them, so we can treat
them not at their cost."
Curry said the property was aware of the problem and did everything
it could to combat the infestation.
"As soon as we hear complaints, we have the pest control service
come take care of it. When we discovered it was major, we had
several of the units treated at once to make sure they didn't
spread," Curry said. "Our protocol is making sure any bedding that
is affected gets laundered. We opened the laundry for free for
residents when we knew it was happening so not to share bedbugs
between them."
As for not addressing the stove issue Olivas alleged, Curry said he
does not recall that incident.
"I don't know if that's true. We're here every day and I don't
remember seeing a stove outside. Certainly, there was a mouse
problem but not rat," Curry said. "We sweep the area to make sure
there are not more rodents."
Despite the complex's actions, Olivas and Saenz said they didn't do
enough.
"They never really addressed the issue, they just pushed it under
the rug and it progressively got worse. But they didn't fix
anything," Olivas said. "There were several tenants moving out and
not having a place to stay. It was like they were being kicked out
by the rodents. It was either they live there with them or move
out. I spent a couple hundred dollars trying to eliminate the pests
myself. A lot of neighbors had to get rid of furniture and had to
start all over from scratch. It was a traumatizing experience."
Class-action lawsuit
Saenz said tenants and former tenants who have had an infestation
problem are eligible to file in the class-action lawsuit.
"Anybody who has lived in the apartments and has had a problem with
the infestation are eligible to file from the time we filed the
complaint on September 17, all the way back six years to Sept. 21,
2012," Saenz said. "We will be contacting them."
Because the apartment complex is affordable housing for low income
families, Olivas said she has encountered tenants who are afraid to
come forward for fear of being evicted.
"They are in fear of getting their housing taken away and their
vouchers for housing," Olivas said. "A lot of them are fearful of
being evicted and being homeless again. That's the situation I'm
running into. That's the reason we decided to file a class-action,
because the only people that are known plaintiffs are the ones on
the complaint."
Olivas said so far, 10 more residents at the complex have come
forward since the lawsuit was filed on September 17.
"I thought I was being overdramatic. My anxiety level was through
the roof and I thought I was having a heart attack, that's how bad
it was for me. This is not how people need to live," Olivas said.
"I'm still taking medication, I got bad PTSD. They were everywhere,
especially at night. That's when they would come out. The
apartments are very little, you can hear them crawling
everywhere."
City aware of the problem
District 4 Councilor Jack Eakman said he has received phone calls
about the Desert Palms Apartments but has no direct knowledge of
the situation.
"I do know that one of our policy review committees here at the
city is working on a fair housing policy for the city and I'm not
exactly sure where it sits right now. The objective is to have a
level playing field for the quality of housing that are residents
are entitled to," Eakman said. "I would really support such an
initiative here in the city. I, myself, have visited some
properties that people now rent and have seen some of the
conditions that people endure, especially, those who are
compromised with physical handicaps, medical conditions and
behavioral health problems. In my mind, it's quite devasting and
something that we need to improve as a city."
For more information on the class-action lawsuit or how to file
call the law office of Angel Saenz at 575-526-3333.[GN]
DIAMOND PERFECTION: Flores Sues Over Filtration System Warranty
---------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Flores, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Diamond Perfection
Inc., Aqua Finance Inc., and Does 1-10 inclusive, Defendant, Case
No. 18-at-00708, (E.D. Cal., September 25, 2018), seeks redress for
violations of the California False Advertising Act and the Unfair
Business Practices Act.
Defendants are in the business of selling and financing water
filtration systems. As represented by Diamond Perfection to Flores,
their system would self-detect problems and has a warranty that
would cover repairs should problems occur. The acquisition cost
would have a fixed 5.9% interest rate. However, after purchase, the
system did not self-monitor and Defendants failed to fix it
pursuant to the warranty, says the Plaintiff. Additionally, the
financing was 5.9% for only the first year, and 13.99% for each
additional year. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
DIMENSION DATA: Bentford Sues Over Illegal Confidentiality Pacts
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK BENTFORD, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and the State of California v. DIMENSION DATA NORTH AMERICA INC., a
Delaware Corporation; NEXUS IS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. RG18923096 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty., October 2, 2018), is brought against the Defendants
for requiring their California workers to execute alleged unlawful
confidentiality agreements, which act as a restraint on trade,
business, or profession.
The Defendants operate a technology company. Mr. Bentford and
others similarly situated perform computer programming and other
services for the Defendants. The Defendants require these
individuals to sign Associate Inventions and Confidentiality
Agreement as a condition of their employment.
The agreement provides that during employment and for a period of
one year following separation from employment, employees, including
Mr. Bentford, may not ". . .
engage . . . selling, implementing, or servicing business
communications systems or networks for any customer whom I have
established or maintained a relationship on behalf of the
Company."
Dimension Data North America is a Delaware Corporation
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Defendant Nexus IS,
Inc., is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Temecula,
California. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Pasternak, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY PASTERNAK,
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
445 Bush St., Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 693-0300
Facsimile: (415) 693-0393
E-mail: rs@pasternaklaw.com
- and -
Joshua G. Konecky, Esq.
Leslie H. Joyner, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKINS LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
ljoyner@schneiderwallace.com
DM FENCE: Medina Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO C. MEDINA, and all others similarly situated v. DM FENCE,
CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, DAVID MEZA, individually, and
PABLO AROCH, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-24079-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
October 3, 2018), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated
damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees arising from the
Defendants' alleged willful violations of the minimum and overtime
wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
DM Fence is a Florida limited liability company. The Individual
Defendants have operational control over the Defendant
Corporation.
DM Fence installs fences for its customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
2847 Hollywood Blvd.
Hollywood, FL 33020
Telephone: (954) 361-8383
E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com
- and -
Isaac Mamane, Esq.
MAMANE LAW LLC
10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 350A
Miami, FL 33161
Telephone: (305) 773-6661
E-mail: mamane@gmail.com
EDUCATION REALTY: Denies Allegations in Scarantino and Frank Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Education Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on August 21, 2018, a
purported stockholder of Education Realty Trust, Inc., a Maryland
corporation that has elected to be treated as a real estate
investment trust for federal income tax purposes (the "Company"),
filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and its
Board of Directors (the "Board") in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
County, entitled Scarantino v. Churchey et al., Case
03-C-18-008341.
On August 22, 2018, another purported stockholder of the Company
filed a second putative class action lawsuit against the Company
and its Board in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, entitled
Frank v. Education Realty Trust, Inc. et al., Case 03-C-18-008387,
asserting similar claims.
In each action, the complaints allege violations of fiduciary
duties by the Board in connection with the approval of the mergers
(the "Mergers") contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company, Education
Realty Operating Partnership, LP, a Delaware limited partnership
("Company OP"), University Towers Operating Partnership, LP, a
Delaware limited partnership ("DownREIT"), Education Realty OP GP,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Company ("OP GP"), University Towers OP GP, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Company OP
("DownREIT GP" and, together with Company, Company OP, DownREIT and
OP GP, the "Company Parties"), GSHGIF LTP, LP, a Delaware limited
partnership ("Parent"), GSHGIF REIT, a Maryland real estate
investment trust and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("REIT
Merger Sub"), GSHGIF Acquisition LP, a Delaware limited
partnership, a direct subsidiary of REIT Merger Sub and an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("OP Merger Sub"), and GSHGIF
DownREIT LP, a Delaware limited partnership, a direct subsidiary of
OP Merger Sub and an indirect subsidiary of REIT Merger Sub and
Parent ("DownREIT Merger Sub" and, together with Parent, REIT
Merger Sub and OP Merger Sub, the "Buyer Parties," each of which is
an affiliate of Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC ("Greystar")),
and also allege that the Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule
14A, as filed with the SEC on August 13, 2018 (the "Proxy
Statement"), omits certain information that is material to
stockholders.
The complaints seek, among other things, an injunction preventing
the consummation of the Mergers or, in the event the Mergers are
consummated, rescission of the Mergers or rescissory damages, plus
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company believes that the claims asserted in the lawsuits are
without merit and intend to defend against these claims vigorously.
However, in order to moot the plaintiffs' unmeritorious disclosure
claims, alleviate the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation and provide additional information to their respective
stockholders, the Company has determined to voluntarily supplement
the Proxy Statement. Nothing shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary, the Company
specifically denies all allegations made in the lawsuits that any
additional disclosure was or is required.
A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/z6isBK.
A leader in the collegiate housing industry since 1964, Education
Realty Trust, Inc. is one of the largest developers, owners and
managers of high-quality collegiate housing communities. The
company is based in Memphis, Tennessee.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Jeffries FCRA Suit in Texas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Maurice Jeffries, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Equifax Information Services, LLC, Attorney General of Texas -
Child Support and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-03829 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 16, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Equifax Information Services LLC collects and reports consumer
information to financial institutions. The company was formerly
known as Equifax Credit Information Services Inc. and changed its
name to Equifax Information Services LLC in June 2004. The company
was incorporated in 1937 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Equifax
Information Services LLC operates as a subsidiary of Equifax
Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq.
The Law Office of Jonathan Kandelshein
18208 Preston Rd, Ste D-9 No. 256
Dallas, TX 75252
Phone: (646) 753-0149
Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com
ESSENDANT INC: Plumley Challenges Merger With Staples' Affiliates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK PLUMLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ESSENDANT INC., RICHARD D. PHILLIPS, CHARLES K.
CROVITZ, DENNIS J. MARTIN, SUSAN J. RILEY, ALEXANDER M. SCHMELKIN,
STUART A. TAYLOR, II, PAUL S. WILLIAMS, ALEX D. ZOGHLIN, EGG PARENT
INC., and EGG MERGER SUB INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01521-UNA (D. Del.,
October 2, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Essendant will be acquired by affiliates of Staples, Inc.
On September 14, 2018, Essendant's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Egg
Parent Inc. ("Parent") and Egg Merger, Inc. ("Merger Sub").
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced
a tender offer to acquire all of Essendant's outstanding common
stock for $12.80 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is set to
expire today, October 22, 2018.
Essendant is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Deerfield, Illinois. The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.
Essendant is a national distributor of workplace items, with 2017
net sales of $5.0 billion. The Company provides access to a broad
assortment of over 170,000 items, including janitorial and
breakroom supplies, technology products, traditional office
products, industrial supplies, cut sheet paper products, automotive
products, and office furniture. Essendant serves a diverse group
of customers, including independent resellers, national resellers,
and e-commerce businesses. The Company's network of distribution
centers enables the Company to ship most products overnight to more
than ninety percent of the United States.
Parent is a Delaware corporation and is a party to the Merger
Agreement. Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
E-mail: rm@maniskas.com
EVENTBRITE INC: Faces Kloss Suit in Illinois Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHANICE KLOSS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. EVENTBRITE, INC., d/b/a TICKETFLY, a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2018CH12352 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
October 2, 2018), concerns a recent data breach that compromised
private personal information of the Plaintiff and other members of
the putative class due to the Defendant's alleged failure to
implement a reasonably adequate cybersecurity prevention,
detection, and response protocol.
On or before May 30, 2018, Eventbrite was the target of a Data Hack
on its information technology systems. The Data Breach resulted in
unauthorized outside parties gaining access to Eventbrite's
customers' sensitive and confidential personal information,
including their names, home and business addresses, phone numbers,
e-mail addresses, and password values ("PII").
Eventbrite, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation that is transacting
business in Cook County, Illinois, and maintains its headquarters
in California. Eventbrite transacts business in Illinois under the
name Ticketfly.
Eventbrite operates as a platform as a service company. The
Company offers a platform that allows users to provide online event
planning services, as well as publishes, promotes, and sells
tickets through social networks and e-mails.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jad Sheikali, Esq.
William Kingston, Esq.
McGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002
E-mail: jsheikali@mcgpc.com
wkingston@mcgpc.com
EXPRESS MESSENGER: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, Oldenburg Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Oldenburg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a ONTRAC
and SAGACIOUS SERVICES GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-02526-MSK (D.
Colo., October 3, 2018), alleges that the Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay their drivers, including
the Plaintiff, one and one-half their regular rate for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.
Express Messenger Systems, Inc., doing business as OnTrac, is a
corporation domiciled in Delaware and registered and conducting
business in Colorado under the trade name "OnTrac," which has its
principal place of business in Chandler, Arizona. Sagacious
Services, LLC, is a Colorado corporation with its principal place
of business in Loveland, Colorado.
OnTrac and SSG provide package and parcel delivery services to
businesses and individuals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
- and -
Brian Gonzales, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Telephone: (970) 214-0562
E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com
FACEBOOK INC: Content Moderator Files Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Irina Ivanova, writing for CBS, reports that a woman who worked as
a content moderator for Facebook is suing the tech giant, claiming
Facebook failed to adequately protect her from getting PTSD from
the graphic violent images her job required her to watch.
The lawsuit, filed on Sept. 21 in California state court in San
Mateo County, is seeking class-action status, the woman's attorney
said.
"Facebook is ignoring its duty to provide a safe workplace and
instead creating a revolving door of contractors who are
irreparably traumatized by what they witnessed on the job,"
Korey Nelson -- knelson@burnscharest.com -- of the law firm Burns
Charest said in an announcement.
The lawsuit claims that Facebook has drafted work safety standards
to protect content moderators from the graphic content they're
tasked with removing from the platform, but that it ignores those
standards when it comes to its own contractors. "Instead, the
multibillion-dollar corporation affirmatively requires its content
moderators to work under conditions known to cause and exacerbate
psychological trauma," the suit alleges.
The plaintiff, Selena Scola, says in the suit she was a content
moderator for Facebook employed by the contracting firm Pro
Unlimited for nine months starting last June. As part of her job
she was supposedly subjected to "videos, images and livestreamed
broadcasts of child sexual abuse, rape, torture, bestiality,
beheadings, suicide and murder," according to the suit. She was
formally diagnosed with PTSD at an unspecified time, the suit says,
and is asking Facebook to set up a medical monitoring fund to treat
PTSD patients.
Facebook's director of corporate communication, Bertie Thompson,
said the company was reviewing the claim.
"We recognize that this work can often be difficult," he said in a
statement. "That is why we take the support of our content
moderators incredibly seriously, starting with their training, the
benefits they receive, and ensuring that every person reviewing
Facebook content is offered psychological support and wellness
resources. Facebook employees receive these in house and we also
require companies that we partner with for content review to
provide resources and psychological support, including onsite
counseling -- available at the location where the plaintiff worked
-- and other wellness resources like relaxation areas at many of
our larger facilities." [GN]
FLOWERS FOODS: Booth Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Jacy C. Booth, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co., of Lenexa, LLC, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00667 (W.D. Mo., August 21, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Parkville, Missouri who worked as a
Distributor for the Flowers Defendants in that state during the
past three years and, classified as a Distributor. The Plaintiff
performed delivery and merchandizing services to local retailers of
bakery and snack food products manufactured or sold by Flowers
Defendants. The Plaintiff operated out of a distribution center in
Kansas City, Missouri, run and operated by Defendant Flowers Baking
Co. of Lenexa, LLC.
The Defendant Flowers Foods is a corporation whose business
consists of distributing bakery and snack food products to retail
customers, using a centralized network of communication,
distribution, and warehousing facilities integrating Collective
Action members into that existing network of operations. Upon
information and belief, at least one of Defendant Flowers Foods'
bakeries and several of its warehouses are operated by Defendant
Flowers Baking Co. of Lenexa, LLC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Tel: (816) 945-7110
Fax: (816) 945-7118
E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com
FORD MOTOR: Directed to Pay $720K to Thai Customers
---------------------------------------------------
Tassanee Vejpongsa, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that a
Thai court has ordered a local sales affiliate of Ford Motor Co. to
pay 291 customers a total of about $720,000 in compensation for
selling cars equipped with faulty transmissions.
The Bangkok South Civil Court's decision was welcomed on September
21 as a victory in a country where consumers rarely win redress.
Most of the plaintiffs in the class action suit will get payments
of $800 to $8,000 each depending on the number of times and length
of time their cars took to be repaired, the court said on September
21. But 12 plaintiffs were denied compensation because their cars
were modified before they were repaired.
The court ruled that there was no safety issue, although none of
those taking part in the joint lawsuit had reported any injuries.
Ford said in a statement, that it respected the court's verdict.
"We apologize for the inconvenience caused by the Powershift
transmission problems and we reiterate that we will work earnestly
to take responsibility for fixing them according to our customer
service procedures," the company said in statement issued in Thai.
It's another development in a long string of problems with the Ford
transmissions, which have resulted in a lawsuit settlement in the
U.S. and a fine in Australia. Last year, Dearborn, Michigan-based
Ford settled a class-action lawsuit and agreed to pay owners of
2012 to 2016 Focus and 2011 to 2016 Fiesta cars up to $2,325. Those
who paid for repairs could also be reimbursed in the complex
settlement, which is being appealed.
This year, Ford's Australian subsidiary was fined 10 million
Australian dollars ($7.6 million) for mishandling complaints about
faulty transmissions in thousands of cars.
The group in the Thai lawsuit asked Ford to buy back the cars and
sought 600 million Thai baht ($18.5 million) in damages. They can
appeal the ruling within 30 days.
One of the plaintiffs, Varoporn Chamsanit, said the five-year
warranty on her car's transmission was about to run out and she was
unhappy the court's ruling did not mention Ford's future
responsibility for repairs.
"On one hand, I feel proud that we consumers got together and made
this demand by ourselves and fought a long fight for several years
now," she said. "Today the court made it clear that Ford is at
fault and awarded compensation for us. I am proud of the result
that we received from the court and feel we've gotten a certain
degree of justice."
The case was viewed as a milestone for Thailand, where the civil
law was amended several years ago to allow class action litigation
for the first time, enabling consumers to seek damages for various
complaints.
"If we consider this case, beyond the amount of money awarded, this
shows that when consumers work together against any big company, we
can achieve a victory. When we file a class-action lawsuit, we can
prove the damage is widespread and real, not just hearsay," said
lawyer Jinna Yamoaum, Esq. [GN]
FORSTER & GARBUS: Page Files Suit in New York Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
Forster & Garbus, LLP is facing a class action lawsuit under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The case is styled as Kyle A. Page on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus, LLP,
Navient Solutions, Inc., Navient Solutions, LLC, SLM Private Credit
Student Loan Trust 2006-C, Mark A. Garbus, Ronald Forster,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-05774 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 16, 2018).
Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts.
Navient Solutions, Inc. provides loan management, servicing, and
asset recovery solutions to clients in higher education and
business clients, as well as federal, state, and local governments.
The company offers financial services in the areas of education
loan, private student loan, and asset recovery and collections
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
FOUR PARTNERS: Howard Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Christopher Howard, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Four Partners
Petroleum, Inc., Hamlin Citgo, Inc., Suhail Assaf, Salim l/n/u,
Hussain l/n/u, Mark l/n/u, South Chicago Gas, Inc., and Mohamed
Mohsin, Case No. 1:18-cv-00572 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to:
(1) order conditional certification of this action as a
representative collective action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act on behalf of all hourly employees
dating back from three years from the date of notice;
(2) order court-facilitated notice in the form attached to the
Motion;
(3) order the Defendants to produce lists in electronic format
of all hourly employees, who have worked at either Four
Brothers Petroleum, Hamlin Citgo or South Chicago Gas at
any point between January 25, 2015, and the present. The
list shall contain their last known address, e-mail,
telephone number, and dates of employment; and
(4) authorize the Plaintiff to send notice, at his expense, by
U.S. First Class Mail, e-mail and text message to all
members of the FLSA Class to inform them of their right to
opt-in to this lawsuit.[CC]
Mr. Howard was employed by the Defendants as an hourly worker. He
began his employment in May of 2017 and worked as a cook in the
restaurants at the Defendants' various gas stations. He was paid
in cash for all the hours he worked.
Despite working substantially more than 40 hours per week, Mr.
Howard alleges that he was never compensated at the rate of one and
one half times his hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Deanne S. Medina, Esq.
COMMUNITY ACTIVISM LAW ALLIANCE
17 North State Street, Suite 1380
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 358-9414
E-mail: deanne@calachicago.org
GALILEE: Funeral Homes Not Responsible for Mishandled Bodies
------------------------------------------------------------
Linda A. Moore, writing for Memphis Commercial Appeal, reports that
a Shelby County Chancery Court jury took less than a day to decide
that area funeral directors were not responsible for the
mishandling of bodies at Galilee Memorial Gardens and that the
cemetery was 99 percent responsible for what happened there.
The verdict follows a class action lawsuit with more than 1,200
plaintiffs whose loved ones were buried in caskets one atop the
other. Cemetery records were in such a state that it's likely
families will never know who is buried where.
Galilee, located on Ellis Road in Bartlett, was named in the
lawsuit, but the focus was on the area funeral directors, who after
services at the cemetery, left caskets at a pavilion or committal
area to be buried later.
It was a set up plaintiff attorney Katheryn Barnett called "a
McDonald's drive-through."
The plaintiffs acknowledged that the funeral directors did not
personally mishandle the remains, but rested on the argument that
had the funeral directors stayed until the bodies were properly
buried, Galilee would have never been able to get away with what
they did.
The trial lasted more than three weeks, with expert witnesses on
both sides offering opinions on how the standard of care for
funeral directors and community practices play a role in how
burials are handled. The lawsuit covered actions from 2011 to
2014.
Chancellor Jim Kyle presided in a newly constructed courtroom at
the county administration building, which was built there to
accommodate large number of plaintiffs who sat through the trial
and the dozens of lawyers representing the various funeral homes.
Funeral directors breached fiduciary responsibility
The jury found that the funeral directors did not recklessly
mishandle the remains and that they were one percent responsible
for what happened at the cemetery. The jury also found that the
funeral directors did breach their fiduciary responsibility to
their clients.
The funeral home directors argued that there is no line item for
burials in their funeral contracts. The families' contracts for
burial were with the cemetery and that their role is to take care
of the remains until those remains are turned over to the
cemetery.
Also, cemeteries are registered with the state of Tennessee, which
knowingly allowed Galilee to remain open and active after its state
registration had expired.
"We agree, it's a tragedy for these people, what Galilee did," said
defense attorney John Branson during closing arguments last week.
But the failure was with Galilee and with the state, Mr. Branson
said
Testifying as an expert witness for the defense, former Memphis
City councilman Brent Taylor told the jury that in his more than 30
years as a funeral director, he could count the times on one hand
that he had been asked to stay for a burial.
"I don't believe they violated any standard of care for funeral
directors by not staying to the last shovel of dirt was placed on
the grave," he said.
Mr. Taylor owns several funeral homes and the Helen Crigger
Cemetery in Munford, Tennessee.
Technically, the cemetery is responsible for the remains once the
body arrives at the property, but practically, Mr. Taylor said,
they take over when the service at the cemetery is over.
"Normally, the funeral director leaves with the family, because
they may need to get back to the church with them, get back to the
funeral home, or get the family to a repast," Mr. Taylor said.
And cemetery owners may not want non-employees nearby during a
burial for safety reasons, he said.
Plaintiff witness Derrick Gunn, a funeral director in Little Rock,
testified that when he went to Galilee on Nov. 3, 2013 to find
Renisha Johnson's body, he saw crushed and crumpled caskets piled
five or six high.
Cemetery workers had to look inside the caskets as they searched
for Ms. Johnson. Her body was never found, he said.
Mr. Gunn attempted to work with Galilee as a consultant, but later
contacted state authorities.
In 2015, cemetery owner Jemar Lambert entered an Alford plea to
criminal charges of mishandling bodies and theft, which included
burying caskets on adjacent property not owned by the cemetery. He
was sentenced to 10 years probation. [GN]
GAMMA HEALTHCARE: Keaton Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRANCE KEATON, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. GAMMA HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00736-DPM
(E.D. Ark., October 3, 2018), accuses the Defendant of failing to
pay the Plaintiff and others overtime compensation for all hours
that they worked in excess of 40 per workweek, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
Gamma Healthcare, Inc., is a foreign for-profit corporation,
registered to do business in the state of Arkansas. The Company's
main office is located in Poplar Bluff, Missouri.
The Company operates clinical laboratories with locations
throughout the Midwestern United States, including several
locations in Arkansas. The Company owns and operates a clinical
laboratory in Little Rock, along with at least 18 other locations
throughout the Midwestern United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Burks, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
GEORGIA: Faces Civil Rights Class Action
----------------------------------------
The case styled as Georgia Muslim Voter Project, Asian-Americans
Advancing Justice-Atlanta, Plaintiffs v. Brian Kemp in his official
capacity as the Secretary of State of Georgia, Gwinnett County
Board of Voter Registration and Elections on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-04789-LMM (N.D. Ga., Oct. 16, 2018) was filed under the
Civil Rights Act.
Brian Porter Kemp is an American politician and businessman serving
as the 27th and current Secretary of State of Georgia since 2010.
Kemp was appointed by then Governor Sonny Perdue to succeed Karen
Handel when she stepped down to run in the 2010 Georgia
gubernatorial election.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dale E. Ho, Esq.
NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street
16th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Phone: (212) 965-2200
Email: dho@naacpldf.org
- and -
Sean Young, Esq.
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Georgia, Inc.
P.O. Box 77208
1100 Spring St., N.W., Ste 640
Atlanta, GA 30357
Phone: (678) 981-5295
Email: syoung@acluga.org
GRAY TELEVISION: Cellino & Barnes Sues Over Air-time Price-Rigging
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellino & Barnes, P.C., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Gray Television, Inc., Hearst
Communications, Nexstar Media Group, Inc., Tegna Inc., Tribune
Media Company, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. and Does 1-20,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-08778 (S.D. N.Y., September 25, 2018),
seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief for violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Defendants are media companies who are accused by the Plaintiff of
conspiring to fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain prices for
commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout
the United States by sharing competitively sensitive information
through their advertising sales teams.
Plaintiff is a law firm with offices in this District at 420
Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10170. It purchased TV ad time one
or more of the Defendants. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
Scott V. Papp, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C.
44 South Broadway, Ste. 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Tel. (914) 997-0500
Email: bhart@lowey.com
spapp@lowey.com
GREEN BANCORP: Bushansky Seeks to Halt Veritex Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Green Bancorp, Inc., Manuel J. Mehos,
William D. Ellis, Stephen Eisenstein, Steven D. Lerner, Scott
Schaen, Stefanie L. Shelley, Alan M. Silberstein, Robert B.B. Smith
and Derek L. Weiss, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03430 (S.D. Tex.,
September 25, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or
closing the acquisition of Green Bancorp by Veritex Holdings, Inc.,
rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger,
rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Each share of Green common stock issued and outstanding immediately
prior to the effective time of the merger will be converted into
the right to receive 0.79 shares of Veritex common stock.
The complaint says the proxy statement filed with respect the
merger omitted the analyses performed by the Company's financial
advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, in connection with the proposed
transaction.
Green is a Texas-focused bank holding company headquartered in
Houston, Texas. Its wholly-owned subsidiary, Green Bank, a
nationally chartered commercial bank, provides commercial and
private banking services primarily to Texas based customers through
twenty-two full service branches in the Houston and Dallas
metropolitan statistical areas and other markets. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 234-1560
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
- and -
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 682-3025
Fax: (212) 682-3010
HCR MANOR: MacRae Seeks to Certify 6 Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned THOMAS HAROLD MacRAE, by and
through his Successor in Interest, Heather Watters; FRANCISCA
DENNING, by and through her Successor in Interest Claudette
Denning; and Tomasita Hoffman by and through her Successor in
Interest Gilda Molinar, the Plaintiffs, vs. HCR MANOR CARE
SERVICES, LLC; MANOR CARE OF CITRUS HEIGHT CA, LLC; MANOR CARE OF
FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA, LLC; MANOR CARE OF HEMET CA, LLC; and DOES 1
through 250, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
SACV-14-0071SDOC(RNBx) (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on October 29, 2018, for certification of six subclasses:
Subclass One "Private Pay Residents of ManorCare Health Services
(Fountain Valley) - Consumer Legal Remedies Act":
"all persons who resided in (or continue to reside in) the
skilled nursing facility doing business under the fictitious
business name ManorCare Health Services (Fountain Valley) at any
time within the three years prior to the filing of the original
complaint in this action through the date of the final disposition
of this action wherein the Defendants were reimbursed for services
provided to "class member" by private pay and/or privately acquired
insurance and/or any HMO or PPO";
Subclass Two "All Residents of ManorCare Health Services (Fountain
Valley) - Consumer Legal Remedies Act Violations":
"all persons who resided in (or continue to reside in)
ManorCare Health Services (Fountain Valley) at any time within the
three years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date
of the final disposition of this action. This subclass shall seek
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs only";
Subclass Three ''Health & Safety Code Section 1430(b) Violations to
Residents of ManorCare Health Services (Fountain Valley)":
"all persons who were resided in (or continue to reside in)
ManorCare Health Services (Fountain Valley) at any time within the
three years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date
of the final disposition of this action regardless of the manner in
which Defendants were reimbursed for services";
Subclass Four "Private Pay Residents of ManorCare Health Services
(Hemet)-Consumer Legal Remedies Act Violations":
"all persons who resided in (or continue to reside in) the
skilled nursing facility doing business under the fictitious
business name ManorCare Health Services (Hemet) at any time within
the three years prior to the filing of the original complaint in
this action through the date of the final disposition of this
action wherein the Defendants were reimbursed for services provided
to "class member" by private pay and/or privately acquired
insurance and/or any HMO or PPO".
Subclass Five "All Residents of ManorCare Health Services
(Hemet)-Consumer Legal Remedies Act Violations":
"all persons who resided in (or continue to reside in)
ManorCare Health Services (Hemet) at any time within the three
years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of the
final disposition of this action. This subclass shall seek
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs only"; and
Subclass Six "Health & Safety Code Section 1430(b) Violations to
Residents of ManorCare Health Services (Hemet)":
"all persons who were resided in (or continue to reside in)
ManorCare Health Services (Hemet) at any time within the three
years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of the
final disposition of this action regardless of the manner in which
Defendants were reimbursed for services".[CC]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Stephen M. Garcia, Esq.
William M. Artigliere, Esq.
David M. Medby, Esq.
GARCIA, ARTIGLIERE & MEDBY
One Word Trade Center, Suite 1950
Long Beach CA 90831
Telephone: 1562 216 5270
Facsimile: 1562) 216 5271
E-mail: sgarcia@lawgarcia.com
wartitdiere@lawgarcia.com
dmedby@lawgarcia.com
Attorneys for Defendants:
Brad W. Seiling, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLC
11355 W. Olympic Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 312 4000
Facsimile: (310) 312 4224
- and -
John P. Petrullo, Esq.
PETRULLO LLP
222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 806
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (213) 627 0400
Facsimile: (213) 627 0402
HOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERY: Picon Files Suit Under ADA
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Hospital for
Special Surgery Ambulatory Surgery Center of Manhattan, LLC. The
case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hospital for Special Surgery
Ambulatory Surgery Center of Manhattan, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-09485 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 16, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Hospital for Special Surgery Ambulatory Surgery Center of
Manhattan, LLC, is a facility providing outpatient surgery options.
HSS ASC of Manhattan has four operating rooms and 16 beds for
pre/post anesthesia care. Specialties include foot and ankle, hand
and upper extremity, and sports medicine. HSS ASC of Manhattan is
an independent, fully-licensed ambulatory surgery center providing
multi-specialty outpatient surgical services and was formed as a
joint venture between Hospital for Special Surgery and HSS
surgeons.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
HUNTINGWOOD INC: Iturbide Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALVARO GUZMAN ITURBIDE, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. HUNTINGWOOD, INC. (D/B/A STELLA'S PIZZA),
ROBERT SELIGSOHN (A.K.A. ROB SELIGHOHN), and EDGAR DOE, Case No.
1:18-cv-09036 (S.D.N.Y., October 3, 2018), alleges that the
Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that he worked.
Huntingwood, Inc. (d/b/a Stella's Pizza) is a domestic corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York.
The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers,
principals, or agents of the Company.
The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a pizzeria, located
at 110 9th Avenue, in New York City, under the name "Stella's
Pizza."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seeks Dismissal of Baby Wash Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ann Magnell, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson over
the use of the word "hypoallergenic" on baby wash are asking a
federal court to deny the company's motion to dismiss their
complaint.
On Aug. 17, defendant Johnson & Johnson filed a motion in the U.S.
District for the Northern District of California to dismiss the
second amended complaint in a lawsuit over allegations that the
hypoallergenic claims made by the personal hygiene company are
false and misleading.
Plaintiffs Austin Rugg and Jennifer Fish responded Sept. 13 to deny
the defendant's motion to dismiss their second amended complaint,
stating that the defendant repeats "verbatim many arguments it made
previously."
Johnson & Johnson cites an alleged lack of the plaintiffs'
subject-matter jurisdiction as well as alleges that the second
amended complaint "and every claim for relief fail to state a claim
for which relief can be granted."
Additionally, the defendant states that the complaint "fails to
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)…and fails to plead with
sufficient particularity as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)."
According to the defendant, the plaintiffs "lack standing to
challenge products they did not purchase and advertisements and
websites they did not see, and to pursue injunctive and declaratory
relief."
The plaintiffs allege that they purchased Johnson's Baby Bedtime
Moisture Wash and Baby Bedtime Lotion or Johnson's Baby Head-To-Toe
Wash and Baby Lotion in 2016 and 2017 and that their decision to do
so was because of the word "hypoallergenic" that was printed on the
products' labels.
According to the plaintiffs, they would have not purchased these
products had they known that they "contained skin sensitizers,
irritants, toxins, carcinogens, or otherwise harmful materials."
The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendant claiming that its
products contain "such a high concentration of skin allergens that
the products are likely to cause a skin allergy," according to the
plaintiffs' memorandum.
The defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' definition of
"hypoallergenic" is unreasonable, and "departs from the dictionary
definition and common understanding." The defendants also claim
that the plaintiffs' "reliance on (Occupational Safety and Health
Administration) regulations is misplaced," the motion states.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
5:17-cv-05010 [GN]
KING OF DIAMONDS: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Woodard Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
NYGERIA WOODARD, On behalf of herself and all others
similarly-situated v. KING OF DIAMONDS GENTLEMAN CLUB, NEW SIR-RAH
HOUSE and 4170 LEE ROAD TAVERN, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-02306 (N.D.
Ohio, October 3, 2018), alleges that the Defendants misclassified
the Plaintiff and other exotic dancer employees as "independent
contractors" and paid these employees zero wages, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ms. Woodard also alleges that she and those similarly-situated are
required to pay a share of their income from dancing, which was
derived solely from tips, to King of Diamonds.
King of Diamonds Gentleman Club is the unregistered name of an
adult entertainment club doing business at 4170 Lee Road, in
Cleveland, Ohio. New Sir-rah House, LLC, is a limited liability
company organized under the laws of the state of Ohio whose
principal place of business is located in Cleveland. New Sir-rah
is believed to own or partially own King of Diamonds.
4170 Lee Road Tavern, LLC is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of the state of Ohio whose principal place of
business is located in Cleveland. 4170 Lee Road Tavern is believed
to own or partially own King of Diamonds.
The Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in Cleveland,
Ohio, called King of Diamonds.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
Chris P. Wido, Esq.
Tina M. Scibona, Esq.
THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 291-4744
Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
E-mail: brian.spitz@spitzlawfirm.com
chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com
MANSUETO VENTURES: Violates ADA, Sullivan Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mansueto Ventures
LLC. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mansueto
Ventures LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09457 (S.D. N.Y., Oct.
16, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Mansueto Ventures LLC publishes magazines. It offers print, online,
custom publishing, and integrated marketing solutions for
entrepreneurs and business executives in the United States. The
company was founded in 2005 and is based in New York, New York.
Mansueto Ventures LLC is a former subsidiary of Gruner + Jahr USA
Publishing Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Lennen Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned ANTHONY LENNEN, et al., the
Plaintiffs, vs. MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-00855-CEM-TBS (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying classes:
MVC Trust Owners Class: a Rule 23(b)(2) class consisting of:
"all current and former owners of the MVC Trust product from
its inception in June 15, 2010, through and including the present";
Legacy Owners Class: a Rule 23(b)(3) class consisting of:
"all current and former owners of traditional weekly
timeshare interests in Component Sites of the MVC Trust from June
15, 2010, to the present; and
Legacy Owners Subclass: a Rule 23(b)(2) class consisting of:
"all those Legacy Owners Class members who currently own
traditional weekly timeshare interests in Component Sites of the
MVC Trust;
2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel, Newman Ferrara LLP, as Class
Counsel.
Excluded from the proposed classes and subclass are Defendants, as
well as any entity in which a Defendant has a controlling interest,
along with Defendants’ legal representatives, officers,
directors, assignees and successors, the lawsuit says.[CC]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Christopher S. Polaszek, Esq.
THE POLASZEK LAW FIRM, PLLC
3407 W. Kennedy Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33609
Telephone: (813) 574-7678
E-mail: chris@polaszeklaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq.
NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
1250 Broadway, 27th Fl.
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 619-5400
E-mail: jnorton@nfllp.com
- and -
Soomi Kim, Esq.
2400 South College Drive
High Point, NC 27260
Telephone: (336) 471-8769
E-mail: soomiwork@gmail.com
MASSACHUSETTS: Merrimack Valley Utility Class Action Mulled
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Daily News reports that the state attorney general's office is
a resource for people who have axes to grind over defective
products. Its consumer division routinely fields complaints about
public utilities, and its website offers instructions on how to
file grievances with the state Department of Public Utilities over
billing disputes with electric and gas companies.
Well, about 8,600 homeowners and businesses in the Merrimack Valley
have a dispute with a public utility. And if Attorney General Maura
Healey's office is really "the people's law firm," as her website
suggests, then the people of South Lawrence, Andover and North
Andover need their lawyer.
Witness at least three class-action lawsuits reportedly in the
works in the Merrimack Valley, and the controversy surrounding one
former official said to be signing up plaintiffs.
It's not surprising that people would flock to add their names to
these cases. Many are searching for answers and assistance, in
addition to heat and a hot shower, in the aftermath of the Sept. 13
natural gas disaster. Many doubtlessly worry about how they'll
cover the expenses that loom ahead of them. Many legitimately need
the services of an attorney.
But how many who've been pitched by plaintiffs' attorneys are
carefully weighing the pros and cons of joining a class of
litigants? How many realize that the lawyers who file these suits
represent that class, and the interests of a group, and not
necessarily the needs of each individual member?
One would hope and expect the attorneys behind these cases to be
talking over all of this kind of information with their potential
clients before signing them on. But wouldn't that information
better be presented by a neutral source -- in this case, the
"people's law firm"?
Never mind the work of ensuring Columbia Gas makes good on its
obligation to those 8,600 customers. The utility has opened claims
centers in Lawrence and the two neighboring towns, and it
presumably will be writing hefty checks to residents and businesses
in the weeks and months to come. Who better to watch over this
process to ensure the company lives up to its ethical, and legal,
obligation to the customers whose lives it has affected?
The past 10 days have seen many an official visit South Lawrence,
Andover and North Andover, including Gov. Charlie Baker and U.S.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who've appeared multiple times.
Ms. Healey has visited and issued advice for homeowners and
renters, such as documenting their losses and being cautious about
donating money to charities.
But it would seem a good time for the attorney general and her
staff to be a far more visible presence, especially when it comes
to guiding residents and businesses, all of whom are consumers,
through the difficult legal choices they face.
William Lantigua, a former Lawrence mayor and state representative,
needed no invitation. Last week, he was helping drum up attendance
at a meeting at St. Anthony's Church, where lawyers from a Boston
firm, Bailey Glasser, talked about the case they're planning
against Columbia Gas.
Mr. Lantigua described himself to a reporter as nothing but a
conduit of information for people who are "still very nervous." But
the whole thing smelled to Mayor Daniel Rivera, who says
Mr. Lantigua is taking advantage of people.
Whether or not that's true, the potential to manipulate a
vulnerable group of people is certainly heightened since a surge of
overpressurized gas caused explosions and fires throughout the
three communities. The gas disaster destroyed homes, injured dozens
and killed a teenage boy.
While many now face the struggle of rebuilding, a far larger group,
numbering in the thousands, must deal with damages on a smaller
scale. And far too many will be forced to make do with cold baths
and showers, boilers that don't work and nonfunctioning ovens and
stoves as they do it.
There's no official estimate of damages here. The number surely
will be padded with many, many zeroes.
In the midst of this confusion, cost and fear, a massive group of
residents and businesspeople in the Merrimack Valley could use some
clarity and legal advice -- the kind that the attorney general
should be here to offer. [GN]
MATTRESS FIRM: McCulloh Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SPENCER MCCULLOH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MATTRESS FIRM, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Case No. 3:18-cv-05805 (W.D. Wash., October 3, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, exemplary damages, interest, and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Revised Code of
Washington and the Washington Annotated Code.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other
individuals employed in the state of Washington by Mattress Firm,
who were paid a piece-rate and/or commission basis during at least
one pay period during the three years prior to the filing of this
Complaint through the present.
Mattress Firm, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Houston, Texas. The Company is a mattress store chain operating
over 3,300 stores in the United States, including 42 stores in
Washington State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
1829 Reisterstown Road, Suite 410
Baltimore, MD 21208
Telephone: (310) 601-6766
Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
MCCARTHY BUILDING: Browning Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Derrious Browning, an individual, and Darrell Love, an individual,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. and Does 1 through
10, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05882 (N.D. Cal., September 25,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated and compensatory
damages, waiting time penalties due pursuant to the California
Labor Code, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and
such other relief under the California Labor Code.
McCarthy was involved in the construction of various industrial
projects, including the California Flats Solar Project where
Browning worked as a general laborer. He seeks unpaid wages for
off-the-clock pre-shift and post-shift work. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (818) 883-4900
Fax: (818) 338-2533
Email: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com
- and -
Lonnie C. Blanchard III, Esq.
THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
3579 East Foothill Boulevard, No. 338
Pasadena, CA 91107
Telephone: (213) 599-8255
Fax: (213) 402-3949
Email: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com
MDL 2543: Jurisdictions Disputes in Ignition Switch Suit Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION.
This Document Relates to All Actions, Case Nos. 14-MD-2543 (JMF),
14-MC-2543 (JMF) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued an
order regarding application of the Court's prior rulings on
manifestation, incidental damages (lost time), and unjust
enrichment to all remaining jurisdictions in dispute.
The multidistrict litigation ("MDL") arose from the recall in
February 2014 by General Motors, LLC ("New GM") of General Motors
("GM") vehicles that had been manufactured with a defective
ignition switch -- a switch that could too easily move from the
"run" position to the "accessory" and "off" positions, causing
moving stalls and disabling critical safety systems (such as the
airbag). Following that recall, New GM recalled millions of other
vehicles, some for ignition switch-related defects and some for
other defects.
In the litigation, the Plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of a
broad putative class of GM car owners and lessors whose vehicles
were subject to those recalls, arguing that they have been harmed
by, among other things, a drop in their vehicles' value due to the
ignition switch defect and other defects. Their operative
complaint -- the Fifth Amended Consolidated Complaint or "5ACC" --
exceeds 1700 pages and 7400 paragraphs, and includes claims
relating to the ignition-switch defect and various other alleged
defects under state law brought by named Plaintiffs in all fifty
states and the District of Columbia.
In conjunction with the parties, the Court decided early on not to
entertain a motion to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' economic loss
claims at once -- given, among other things, the number and scope
of those claims; the possibility that the litigation would be
materially affected by parallel proceedings in (and arising out of)
bankruptcy court; and the likelihood that the parties could
ultimately agree upon how the Court's rulings as to some state law
claims would apply to others, saving the need for the parties to
brief and the Court to decide the same issues in fifty-one
different jurisdictions.
In an Opinion and Order filed on July 15, 2016, with respect to the
then-operative Third Amended Consolidated Complaint ("TACC"), the
Court ruled on the validity of the Plaintiffs' claims in eight
jurisdictions. A little less than one year later, the Court issued
another Opinion and Order (later modified), with respect to the
then-operative Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint ("FACC"),
addressing the validity of the Plaintiffs' claims in another eight
jurisdictions. The Plaintiffs later filed the 5ACC.
In MDL Order No. 131, entered on Aug. 30, 2017, the Court directed
the parties to meet and confer regarding the application of the
Court's prior motion to dismiss opinions on the issues of (i)
unjust enrichment, (ii) incidental damages, and (iii) manifest
defect to the jurisdictions that had not been the subject of prior
rulings by the Court -- a total of 35 jurisdictions for the issues
of unjust enrichment and manifest defect and 47 jurisdictions for
the issue of incidental damages. That process yielded agreement,
and a stipulation, with respect to application of the Court's prior
opinions to some issues in some of the remaining jurisdictions --
albeit many fewer issues in many fewer jurisdictions than the Court
had hoped.
Thereafter, the parties submitted lengthy briefs addressing the
disputes that remained: (1) whether "manifest defect" is required
for the Plaintiffs to recover for their economic losses under the
laws of 27 jurisdictions; (2) whether the Plaintiffs can recover
damages for their "lost time" (for example, time lost in repairing
their vehicles) under the laws of 47 jurisdictions; and (3) whether
the existence of a contract or an adequate legal remedy bars the
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims under the laws of 10
jurisdictions.
The parties have briefed application of the Court's prior Opinions
on the issues of (1) manifestation; (2) incidental damages (i.e.,
lost time); and (3) unjust enrichment to the jurisdictions that
have not been the subject of prior motion practice and that remain
in dispute.
In the Opinion and Order, Judge Furman resolves those disputes —
no easy task given the sheer number of issues and jurisdictions in
dispute, the fact that the relevant law in many of jurisdictions is
unsettled or in conflict, and because subtle differences in state
law can dictate different results for the Plaintiffs in different
jurisdictions.
The Judge concludes (i) that manifestation is not required for any
of claims and jurisdictions that remain in dispute; (ii) that, in
all but a few of the jurisdictions that remain in dispute, the
Plaintiffs cannot recover for lost "free" or "personal" time, but
can recover for lost time in the form of lost earnings or wages;
and (iii) that the Plaintiffs in most of the jurisdictions in
dispute cannot bring unjust enrichment claims where the subject
matter is covered by a valid and enforceable contract or there is
an adequate remedy at law.
For all jurisdictions in dispute, the Judge finds that
manifestation is not required to bring statutory consumer
protection, common-law fraud, and implied warranty claims. Second,
for all but six of the jurisdictions in dispute, he finds that the
Plaintiffs may recover lost-time damages where "lost time" is
understood as lost earnings or its equivalent, but not where "lost
time" is understood as "lost personal time." In Colorado, New
York, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, however, the Plaintiffs may also
recover lost personal time under the states' consumer protection
statutes; and in Oklahoma, the Plaintiffs may recover lost personal
time for all claims. Finally, in every one of the ten
still-disputed jurisdictions other than Connecticut, a plaintiff
may plead unjust enrichment in the alternative only where the
validity or enforceability of a contract is in question, and in
seven out of the 10 jurisdictions (all but Connecticut, New
Hampshire, and Rhode Island), a plaintiff may not maintain an
unjust enrichment claim if he or she has an adequate remedy at
law.
Exhibit A is a chart summarizing the Court's conclusions of law for
all jurisdictions. The parties are directed to meet and confer
and, within thirty days of the date of the Opinion and Order, will
jointly submit a stipulation and proposed order applying the
Court's conclusions to the Plaintiffs and claims in the 5ACC.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 12, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/kTDdGN from Leagle.com.
Teleso Satele, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Carlota Onofre, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Elaine T. Byszewski
-- elaine@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Major A.
Langer, Perona, Langer, Beck & Lallande, Mark P. Robinson, Jr.,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc, Scot D. Wilson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc, pro hac vice, Jason
Allen Zweig -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Sean R. Matt -- sean@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.
Devora Kelley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Charles Girard, Girard
Gibbs LLP, pro hac vice, David K. Stein, Girard Gibbs Llp, pro hac
vice, Eric H. Gibbs, Girard, Gibbs & De Bartolomeo & Scott M.
Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP, pro hac vice.
Frederick Whittington, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs,
Girard, Gibbs & De Bartolomeo.
Katie Michelle McConnell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine T. Byszewski,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jason Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Sean R. Matt, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP &
Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
Sylvia Benton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine T. Byszewski, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Kevin Frank Calcagnie, Robinson Calcagnie
Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc, pro hac vice, Mark P. Robinson, Jr.,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc, Robert Bruce Carey,
Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro,LLP, Scot D. Wilson, Robinson
Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc, pro hac vice, Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Jason Allen
Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Sean R. Matt, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & Elizabeth J. Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com --
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, L.L.P.
Martin Ponce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan A. Michaels , Mlg
Automotive Law, Aplc, pro hac vice, Justin Benjamin Farar , Kaplan
Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn Jeanine Harvey , MLG
Automotive Law APLC, pro hac vice, Laurence David King , Kaplan Fox
& Kilsheimer LLP, Linda M. Fong , Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, pro
hac vice & Robert N. Kaplan , Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.
General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Baker Bloomer
-- andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice, Anne M. Talcott -- atalcott@schwabe.com -- Schwabe Williamson
& Wyatt, PC, Arthur Jay Steinberg -- asteinberg@kslaw.com -- King &
Spalding LLP, Arthur Henry Thorn, Thorn Gershon Tymann and Bonanni,
LLP, Benjamin Houston Joyce -- bjoyce@mcnair.net -- Hood Law Firm,
Carey E. Olson, Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele, LLP, Christopher
William Keegan -- chris.keegan@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, pro hac vice, Cristin Fitzgerald Bordelon , Leake & Andersson,
LLP, Darin T. Beffa -- darin@beffalaw.com -- Kirkland and Ellis
LLP, Darrell Lee Barger, Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, David L.
Balser -- dbalser@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice,
Edward L. Ripley, King & Spalding LLP, Eric Michael English, King
And Spalding LLP, Francis J. Grey , Ricci Tyrrell Johnson & Grey,
James B. Hood, Hood Law Firm, James Johnson, Ricci Tyrrell Johnson
& Grey, PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey J. Cox, Hartline Dacus et al,
Jeffrey Alan Daxe, Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele, LLP, Jeffrey
Sinek -- jeff.sinek@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice, Jennifer L. Bullard, Bowman and Brooke LLP, Jerry L.
Saporito, Leake & Andersson, LLP, John Randolph Bibb, Jr., Lewis,
Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., Kara MacCartie Stewart,
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Kyle Harold Dreyer, Hartline, Dacus, Barger,
Dreyer & Kern, LLP, Kyle Harold Dreyer, Hartline, Dacus, Barger,
Dreyer & Kern, LLP, pro hac vice, Laurie K. Miller, Jackson Kelly
PLLC, pro hac vice, Lawrence J. Murphy, Honigman, Miller, Lawrence
A. Slovensky -- lslovensky@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro
hac vice, Leonid Feller -- leonid.feller@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Linsey W. West, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Lisa
Verna Lecointe, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Mark W. Skanes, The Rose Law
Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Matthew H. McNamara , Thorn Grshon Tymann
and Bonanni, LLP, Richard Cartier Godfrey --
richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Robert
Burkart Ellis -- robert.ellis@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Robert H. Hood, Jr. , Hood Law Firm, Robert Donald Ingram, Moore
Ingram Johnson & Steele, LLP, Rodney E. Loomer, Turner, Reid,
Duncan, Loomer & Patton, P.C., Roshan N. Rajkumar, Bowman and
Brooke LLP, Ryan N. Clark, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop,
P.C., pro hac vice, Ryan M. Ingram, Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele,
LLP, Scott Ian Davidson, King & Spalding LLP, Sherry A. Rozell,
Turner, Reid, Duncan, Loomer & Patton, Stanley Weiner, Jones Day,
Stephen B. Devereaux -- sdevereaux@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding,
LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas P. Branigan, Bowman & Brooke LLP, Thomas
J. Hurney, Jr., Jackson Kelly PLLC, pro hac vice, Thomas M. Klein,
Bowman & Brooke LLP, Whitney H. Kimerling, Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., William L. Kirk, Jr., Rumberger Kirk &
Caldwell, Allan Pixton -- allan.pixton@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, Anne Raven, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Anne Mcclain Sidrys --
asidrys@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Barry
E. Fields -- barry.fields@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Beth Larsen -- beth.larsen@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Brian Douglas Sieve -- brian.sieve@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, Brian T. Smith , Dykema, Bridget Kathleen O'Connor --
bridget.oconnor@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Casey James
McGushin, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Catherine L. Fitzpatrick , Kirkland
& Ellis LLP, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Christina
E. Sharkey , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Daniel Michael Monico, Kirkland
& Ellis LLP, Deron L. Wade, Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer, Dommond
E. Lonnie, Dykema Gossett LLP, Eric Christopher Tew, Dykema, Eric
Yeager -- eric.yeager@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Frank
Chadwick Morriss, Covington & Burling, L.L.P., Geoffrey Alan David
-- geoffrey.david@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Giovanna
Tarantino Bingham, Hartline Dacus Barger, pro hac vice, Greg
Ryckman -- greg.ryckman@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Gregory Polins -- greg.polins@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Haley Lorraine Darling -- haley.darling@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Hariklia Karis --
hariklia.karis@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Jeffrey Scott
Bramson -- jeffrey.bramson@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Jeremy D. Roux -- jeremy.roux@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Jonathan C. Bunge, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan
Kadima Tshiamala -- jonathan.tshiamala@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, Kimberly Olvey Branscome --
kimberly.branscome@kirkland.com --, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice, Lauren Frances Biksacky -- lauren.biksacky@kirkland.com --
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Maria Pellegrino Rivera , Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, pro hac vice, Marianna Caruso Chapleau , Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
pro hac vice, Mark J. Nomellini , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Michael P.
Cooney , Dykema, Michael K. Steinberger , Bush Seyferth & Paige
PLLC, Michael R. Williams , Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Nicholas
Fanklin Wasdin, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Patrick Gerard Seyferth, Bush
Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Paul David Collier , Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
pro hac vice, Peter Bartoszek, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Pryce Godfrey
Tucker , HARTLINE DACUS BARGER, pro hac vice, R. Chris Heck ,
Kirkland & Ellis, L.L.P., Renee Deborah Smith , Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, pro hac vice, Robert C. Brock, Covington & Burling, LLP, pro
hac vice, Samuel James Ikard, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac ice,
Sierra Elizabeth, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Terri A.
Abruzzo -- terri.abruzzo@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Thomas William Osier, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Vanessa Anne Barsanti,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Vinu Joseph, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Wendy L.
Bloom -- wendy.bloom@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Wendy
D. May -- wmay@hdbdlaw.com -- Hartline Daus Barger Dreyer LLP, pro
hac vice.
Don McCue Chevrolet, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael T.
Navigato, Bochte, Kuzniar & Navigato, LLP, Theodore L. Kuzniar,
Bochte, Kuzniar & Navigato, LLP & William F. Bochte, Bochte,
Kuzniar & Navigato, LLP.
General Motors Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew Baker
Bloomer, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin Houston
Joyce, Hood Law Firm, James B. Hood, Hood Law Firm, James Johnson,
Ricci Tyrrell Johnson & Grey, PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Sinek,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Cartier Godfrey,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Robert Burkart Ellis, Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Robert H. Hood, Jr., Hood Law Firm, Allan Pixton , Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, Barry E. Fields, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Catherine L.
Fitzpatrick, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush Seyferth &
Paige PLLC, Michael K. Steinberger, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC,
Michael R. Williams, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Patrick Gerard
Seyferth, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Renee Deborah Smith, Kirkland
& Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & Wendy L. Bloom, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
General Motors Holding, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
Sinek, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Verna Lecointe,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Allan Pixton , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Barry E.
Fields , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Catherine L. Fitzpatrick, Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Michael K.
Steinberger, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Michael R. Williams, Bush
Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Patrick Gerard Seyferth, Bush Seyferth &
Paige PLLC, Renee Deborah Smith, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice
& Wendy L. Bloom, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
Ramey Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, Inc., a West Virginia corporation,
Defendant, represented by Johnnie E. Brown, PULLIN FOWLER FLANAGAN
BROWN & POE.
Stoneridge, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashley Willis Ward,
Stites & Harbison, PLLC, pro hac vice, J. Clarke Keller, Stites &
Harbison PLLC & Doris Rios Duffy, Edward Garfinkel, Law Offices.
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Brown Suit Brought Before 5th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nathanael Brown for himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Mid-America Apartment
Communities, Incorporated, as general partner of Mid-America
Apartments, LP, Mid-America Apartments, L.P., as successor in
merger to Post Apartment Homes, LP doing business as Post
Worthington, Post South Lamar, Post Eastside, Post Park Mesa, Post
Gallery, Post West Austin, Post Sierra at Frisco Bridges, Post Katy
Trail, Post Abbey, Post Addison Circle, Post Cole's Corner, Post
Barton Creek, Post Heights, Post Legacy, Post Meridian, Post
Midtown Square, Post Square, Post Uptown Village, Post Vineyard,
Post Vintage Post Washington, Defendants, Case No. 18-50851, was
brought before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on
Oct. 12, 2018.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract Actions.
MAA is a real estate investment trust, or REIT, focused on
delivering full-cycle and superior investment performance for
shareholders through the ownership, management, acquisition,
development and redevelopment of quality apartment communities
throughout the United States. As of June 30, 2018, MAA had
ownership interest in 101,362 apartment units, including
communities currently in development, across 17 states and the
District of Columbia.
Mid-America Apartments, L.P. operates as a subsidiary of
Mid-America Apartment Communities Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russell S. Post, Esq.
Beck Redden, L.L.P.
1221 McKinney Street
1 Houston Center
Houston, TX 77010
Personal: 713-951-3700
- and -
Karson Thompson, Esq.
Beck Redden, L.L.P.
515 Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
Personal: 512-708-1000
The Defendants are represented by:
Barry Goheen, Attorney, Esq.
King & Spalding, L.L.P.
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Personal: 404-572-4618
- and -
Kathy Lynn Poppitt, Esq.
King & Spalding, L.L.P.
500 W. 2nd Street
Austin, TX 78701
Personal: 512-457-2004
MOBILOANS LLC: Price Files RICO Class Action in Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mobiloans, LLC. The
case is styled as Tamara Price, George Hengle, Regina Notle, Sherry
Blackburn, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Mobiloans, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-00711-MHL (E.D. Va., Oct. 16, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
MobiLoans, LLC, is owned and operated by the Tunica Biloxi Tribe of
Louisiana, a federally recognized Indian tribe operating within the
tribe's reservation. The tribe was federally recognized in 1981 and
has roughly 1236 members.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
Kelly & Crandall PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 424-7570
Fax: (703) 591-9285
Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
- and -
Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
Kelly & Crandall PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 424-7576
Fax: (703) 591-0167
Email: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
- and –
Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
Kelly & Crandall PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 640-3334
Fax: (703) 591-9285
Email: casey@kellyandcrandall.com
- and -
Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
Consumer Litigation Associates
763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
Newport News, VA 23601
Phone: (757) 930-3660
Fax: (757) 930-3662
Email: craig@clalegal.com
- and -
Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
Consumer Litigation Associates
763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
Newport News, VA 23601
Phone: (757) 930-3660
Fax: (757) 930-3662
Email: elizabeth@clalegal.com
- and -
James Wilson Speer, Esq.
Virginia Proverty Law Center
919 E Main Street, Suite 610
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 782-9430
Fax: (804) 649-0974
Email: jay@vplc.org
- and -
Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
Consumer Litigation Associates
763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
Newport News, VA 23601
Phone: (757) 930-3660
Fax: (757) 930-3662
Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
MRS BPO: Faces Melnikov FDCPA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Edouard Melnikov on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-05758 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 15, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
MRS BPO, LLC is a debt collection agency providing accounts
receivables solutions. It offers first and third party collections
services that include skip tracing, letters, human interaction,
scoring, and credit reporting; and analytic solutions that include
effective scoring and regression analysis, voice analytics,
identifying manual processes that can be automated, and increasing
customer retention levels.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bifulco Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Christina Bifulco, Francis Butry and Cori Frauenhofer, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2004-2 and National Collegiate
Student Loan Trust 2006-4 et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07692 (S.D.
N.Y., August 23, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the New
York General Business Law.
The Plaintiff Christina Bifulco resides in Erie County, New York.
The Defendants initiated and maintained at least one action against
the Plaintiff alleging claims related to consumer debt.
The Plaintiff Francis Butry resides in Erie County, New York. The
Defendants initiated and maintained at least one action against Mr.
Butry alleging claims related to consumer debt.
The Plaintiff Cori Frauenhofer resides in Erie County, New York.
The Defendants initiated and maintained at least one action against
Ms. Frauenhofer alleging claims related to consumer debt.
The Defendant National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2004-2 is a
Delaware statutory trust that does business in New York. Its
trustee and agent for service of process is Wilmington Trust
Company, 1100 N. Market St., Rodney Sq., Wilmington, Delaware
19890.
The Defendant National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-4 is a
Delaware statutory trust that does business in New York. Its
trustee and agent for service of process is Wilmington Trust
Company, 1100 N. Market St., Rodney Sq., Wilmington, Delaware
19890. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory A. Frank, Esq.
Marvin L. Frank, Esq.
Asher Hawkins, Esq.
FRANK LLP
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1706
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 682-1853
Fax: (212) 682-1892
E-mail: info@frankllp.com
NAVIENT CORP: Sued by Hyland in S.D.N.Y. for Misleading Borrowers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN HYLAND, MELISSA GARCIA, ELDON R. GAEDE, JESSICA SAINT-PAUL,
REBECCA SPITLERLAWSON, MICHELLE MEANS, ELIZABETH KAPLAN, JENNIFER
GUTH, and MEGAN NOCERINO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NAVIENT CORPORATION and NAVIENT SOLUTIONS,
LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-09031 (S.D.N.Y., October 3, 2018), asserts
that Navient should steer the Plaintiffs and members of the Classes
into income-driven repayment plans that qualify under the Public
Service Loan Forgiveness.
The Plaintiffs contend that each of them has confronted terrible
financial predicament as a direct result of Navient's
misrepresentations. They assert that this action seeks to
compensate borrowers, who qualify for PSLF, for the harm caused by
Navient's misconduct and to stop Navient from continuing to lead
borrowers into financial ruin simply to increase its own profits.
Navient Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located in Wilmington, Delaware. Navient Corp. is the
parent company of Navient Solutions, LLC.
Navient Corp. is the successor to the Student Loan Marketing
Association (commonly referred to as "Sallie Mae"), a
government-sponsored student enterprise created by Congress in 1972
to support the guaranteed student loan program created by the
Health and Education Act. Sallie Mae became fully privatized by
2004. Sallie Mae then split into SLM Corporation, which serves as
the parent company, and Sallie Mae, Inc., which serves as the
subsidiary responsible for a majority of the company's servicing
and collections businesses.
NSI is a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of
Navient Corp. NSI is the main servicing subsidiary of Navient
Corp., servicing over $300 billion in student loans for more than
12 million borrowers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark Richard, Esq.
PHILLIPS, RICHARD & RIND, P.A.
9360 SW 72 Street, Suite 283
Miami, FL 33173
Telephone: (305) 412-8322
E-mail: mrichard@phillipsrichard.com
- and -
Faith Gay, Esq.
Maria Ginzburg, Esq.
Yelena Konanova, Esq.
Margaret England, Esq.
SELENDY & GAY PLLC
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
Telephone: (212) 390-9000
E-mail: fgay@selendygay.com
mginzburg@selendygay.com
lkonanova@selendygay.com
mengland@selendygay.com
NAVITUS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Phillips Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANN PHILLIPS, and BRITTANI RILEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NAVITUS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01563 (E.D. Wisc., October 3, 2018), alleges that the
Plaintiffs and the putative class members were denied overtime
under Navitus' illegal pay policies and practices that violate the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Navitus is a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company with a principal
place of business located in Madison, Wisconsin. Navitus has
locations in Arizona, Texas and Wisconsin.
Navitus is a pharmacy benefit management company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
Summer Murshid, Esq.
Timothy Maynard, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
222 East Erie, Suite 210
P.O. Box 442
Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
Telephone: (414) 271-8650
Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
smurshid@hq-law.com
tmaynard@hq-law.com
NCINO INC: Faces Sullivan ADA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against nCino, Inc. The case
is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. nCino, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-09461 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 16, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
nCino, Inc. provides cloud-based operating solutions for the
financial services industry. It leverages the power and security of
the salesforce platform to deliver a complete banking solution
through its bank operating system. It combines customer
relationship management, loan origination, workflow, enterprise
content management, and instant reporting. The company offers
solutions for commercial banking, small business lending, retail
sales and service, treasury management sales and on boarding, and
customer engagement.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
30 East 39th Street
2nd Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
Email: cklee@leelitigation.com
NEW YORK: Boyd Suit Asserts Prisoner Civil Rights Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Ulysses Boyd on behalf of themselves all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.D. Kevin Petermann, Christopher
LaRosa PA-c, Doctor Mario Malvarosa, Nancy Ryerson, Doctor,
McCarthy, Doctor, Deborah Greer, Doctor, Kyoung Kim, Doctor, Carl
J. Koenigsmann, Doctor, Jaifa Collado Acting Superintendent, P.L.
McNeil, Correction Officer, individually and in their official
capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-09472-UA (S.D. N.Y., Oct.
16, 2018), asserts "Prisoner Condition for Prisoner Civil Rights"
as the nature of suit.
Jaifa Collado is the acting Facility Superintendent in the Green
Haven Correctional Facility.
Dr. Kevin Petermann is an internist in Tampa, FL. He is skilled at
diagnosing & treating a very wide range of diseases & illnesses in
adult patients.
Dr. Christopher LaRosa, MD is a pediatric nephrologist in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He is affiliated with Children's
Hospital of Philadelphia.
Dr. Mario Malvarosa is a highly rated psychiatrist in Poughkeepsie,
NY with over 7 areas of expertise, including Attention Deficit
Disorder (ADD) / Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD),
Bipolar Disorder / Manic Depressive Disorder, Depression,
Depressive Disorder, Insomnia, Schizophrenia and Sleep
Disorders.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
NEW YORK: Crosby Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tommie Crosby on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.D. Kevin Petermann, Christopher
LaRosa PA-c, Doctor Mario Malvarosa, Nancy Ryerson, Doctor,
McCarthy, Doctor, Deborah Greer, Doctor, G. Ripich, Tim Nguyem,
Kyoung Kim, Doctor, Carl J. Koenigsmann, Doctor, Jaifa Collado
Acting Superintendent, P.L. McNeil, Correction Officer,
individually and in their official capacities, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-09470-UA (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 16, 2018) asserts violations of
Prisoner Civil Rights.
Dr. Kevin Petermann is an internist in Tampa, FL. He is skilled at
diagnosing & treating a very wide range of diseases & illnesses in
adult patients.
Dr. Christopher LaRosa, MD is a pediatric nephrologist in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He is affiliated with Children's
Hospital of Philadelphia.
Dr. Mario Malvarosa is a highly rated psychiatrist in Poughkeepsie,
NY with over 7 areas of expertise, including Attention Deficit
Disorder (ADD) / Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD),
Bipolar Disorder / Manic Depressive Disorder, Depression,
Depressive Disorder, Insomnia, Schizophrenia and Sleep
Disorders.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Bhattacharya Suit Alleges SEC Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Arun Bhattacharya, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Nielsen Holdings PLC, Dwight Mitchell Barns,
and Jamere Jackson, Case No. 1:18-cv-07677 (S.D. N.Y., August 22,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
This is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Nielsen
Holdings plc between February 8, 2018 and July 25, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Nielsen recklessly disregarded its readiness for and the true
risks of privacy related regulations and policies, including the
European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), on its current
and future financial and growth prospects; (ii) Nielsen's financial
performance was far more dependent on Facebook and other
third-party large data set providers than previously disclosed and
privacy policy changes affected the scope and terms of access
Nielsen would have to third-party data; (iii) access to Facebook
and other third-party provider data was becoming increasingly
restricted for Nielsen and Nielsen clients; and (iv) as a result,
Nielsen's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
As a result of the material misrepresentations and omissions,
Nielsen stock traded at artificially inflated prices as high as
$34.00 per share, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased or acquired Nielsen common stock during the
class period.
The Defendant Nielsen Holdings is incorporated in the United
Kingdom and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
"NLSN." The Company's headquarters are located in New York and
London.
The Individual Defendants are officers of Nielson Holdings. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 661-1100
Fax: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ
& GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 697-6484
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
NIKE CORP: Current Worker Joins Suit Alleging Gender Pay Gap
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Manning, writing for Oregon Live, reports that deep inside
Oregon-based Nike, Meghan Grieve has embarked on an audacious and
high-stakes mission: On Sept. 13, she joined the plaintiffs in a
sexual discrimination class-action lawsuit against the sneaker
giant.
What sets Grieve apart from the five other plaintiffs is that she
still works at the company.
Nike has been rocked by allegations of bullying and sexual
discrimination since last spring. In response, the company based
near Beaverton has shown a number of executives and managers to the
door. Senior executives have publicly admitted the company has
struggled to gain traction in hiring women and minorities.
Grieve has worked at the company's Washington County headquarters
since 2008. Earlier this month, she was promoted to global visual
presentation senior manager of its Nike Women unit.
"During my time at Nike, I have been paid less than male Nike
employees for substantially equal work," she said in a court
filing.
In recent years, Grieve's pay ranged from $74,275 to $80,730 a
year, court documents show. Last week, it was bumped up to
$88,000.
Grieve claims Nike paid a male colleague in the same job a starting
annual salary of $100,000 that's since increased to $103,000.
"This same colleague was moved to Men's Sportswear (a smaller role)
and he retained the same salary of $103,000," Grieve alleged in
court documents. "I know this because my male colleague has shared
with me his salary."
Grieve claimed she's gone to her boss and to the human resources
department to ask that she paid the same as her male colleague but
got no satisfaction.
Nike officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The company has yet to file an answer to the complaint, which was
filed Aug. 9 in U.S. District Court in Portland.
Apparel designer Elizabeth Lindsay also joined the plaintiffs after
the initial case was filed in August. She claimed that men in
identical roles were paid $3,000 to $20,000 more per year than her.
It's not clear whether she still works for Nike.
Laura Salerno Owens, Esq. -- Laura Salerno@MarkowitzHerbold.com --
of the Markowitz Herbold law firm in Portland, said she and other
plaintiff's counsel continue to seek current and former Nike women
to join the case.
Nike has hired the Paul Hastings law firm out of Los Angeles to
lead its defense. Paul Hastings is perhaps best known for
representing Walmart in the Walmart v. Duke sexual discrimination
case.
The Paul Hastings lawyers convinced the Supreme Court to rule in
Walmart's favor.[GN]
NORDSTROM INC: Sued for Misrepresenting Vintage Rolex Watches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ann Magnell, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a motion
to certify a case as a class action suit was filed in a federal
court on Aug. 31 against Nordstrom Inc. and HauteLook Inc., who
allegedly misrepresented the condition and the worth of vintage
Rolex watches they sold between 2013 and 2017.
The motion was submitted to the U.S. District Court or the Central
District of California arguing that the details in this case
satisfy Rule 23(a), which identifies four class requirements:
numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequate representations. A
hearing for this motion has been scheduled for Dec. 17 with Judge
Dale S. Fischer.
According to the motion, the sales of these watches occurred on
HauteLook, a flash-sale, members-only website that advertises
purchase prices at a discount of between 50 to 75 percent off
retail prices. Plaintiff Brunilda Stephens alleged she purchased
one of 1,417 "vintage" Rolex watches for $6,359.97.
Out of the fulfilled watch orders, her motion states more than 20
percent of them were returned for reasons such as fraud, damage,
other and "warehouse."
Although the watches were represented as authentic, the motion
noted that "the watches delivered were not authentic, often
containing a mixture of after-market parts which had been glued
together."
According to the motion, the website stated that the Rolex watches
would come "direct from the brand." At some point, however,
HauteLook added a disclaimer that the watches "may come from other
vendors," although this disclaimer was "in small print and
difficult to locate."
Buyers were also promised and provided a certified appraisal of the
watch for insurance purposes as well as to establish the retail
value of the products. The filing indicated that the certified
appraisals from a company identified as Swiss Watch Appraiser was
allegedly fraudulent. The watches were sold "as is," and the
consumer did not have the ability to inspect the watch before
purchase. The two-year warranty was also allegedly fraudulent.
"What we also did was we were selling these watches to drive
traffic to our website to be able to engage the customers in all
the other products that we sell as well," Nordstrom said in a
deposition, the motion states.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:17-cv-05872 [GN]
NORTH AMERICAN PUBLISHING: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
North American Publishing Co. is facing a class action lawsuit in
New York. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. North
American Publishing Co. doing business as: Printing Impressions,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09460 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 16, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
North American Publishing Company, doing business as NAPCO Media,
produces print and online content, events, video services, and
marketing solutions for various markets in the United States. It
connects its clients with their audience through integrated media
programs, video services, events, marketing services, custom
content, and e-learning.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
30 East 39th Street
2nd Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
Email: cklee@leelitigation.com
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Faces Travel Insurance Class Action in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reports that Norwegian Cruise
Lines got hit with a proposed class action on Sept. 21 in Florida
federal court alleging the company reaped concealed kickbacks via
the sale of travel insurance policies and deceptively marketed.
[GN]
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Carroll Files FDCPA Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phillips & Cohen
Associates, LTD. The case is styled as Siobhan Carroll,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, LTD., Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-08867 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 15, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. provides debt recovery services
in the United States and internationally. The company offers
deceased account care, pre and post C/O, and pre-arbitration and
litigation services, as well as bankruptcy recovery services,
including on-line bankruptcy verification, fraud review,
proof-of-claim filing by licensed attorneys, dividend processing,
and dismissed bankruptcy collections.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
PNC FINANCIAL: Appeals Decision in McCoy Suit to 3rd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant PNC Financial Services Group Inc. filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Damian McCoy v. PNC Financial
Services Group Inc., Case No. 2-18-cv-00299, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. McCoy
submitted an online application to PNC for the position of IT
Business Analyst and received a conditional offer of employment
contingent upon completion of a drug test and criminal background
check. PNC received criminal background check results stating that
Mr. McCoy had been arrested on June 5, 2011, but that all felony
and misdemeanor charges against him had been withdrawn. Despite
this, PNC revoked his offer of employment based on this criminal
arrest information, which is the primary reason why he filed this
case, notes the Plaintiff.
The appellate case is captioned as Damian McCoy v. PNC Financial
Services Group Inc., Case No. 18-8048, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent DAMIAN MCCOY, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated individuals, is represented by:
Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
James M. Pietz, Esq.
FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
429 Fourth Avenue
Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-8400
E-mail: jpietz@fdpklaw.com
rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com
Defendant-Petitioner PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP INC. is
represented by:
Christopher Bouriat, Esq.
Catherine S. Ryan, Esq.
Kim M. Watterson, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 288-4119
E-mail: cbouriat@reedsmith.com
cryan@reedsmith.com
kwatterson@reedsmith.com
- and -
M. Patrick Yingling, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 207-2834
E-mail: mpyingling@reedsmith.com
PRUCO LIFE: Behfarin Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richard Behfarin,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, vs PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-05290-MWF-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on March 11, 2019, for an order:
1. granting certification of class and subclass:
National Class:
"all person who held universal or variable universal Pruco
Life Insurance Company policies during the period July 18, 2013 to
July 18, 2017, whose policies lapsed, and who upon default or lapse
received notice that to cure or reinstate, they would have to pay
sums that exceeded three months of insurance charges at then
current rates; and
California Sub-Class:
"all person who held universal or variable universal Pruco
Life Insurance Company policies during the period July 18, 2013 to
July 18, 2017, whose policies lapsed, and who upon default or lapse
received notice that to cure or reinstate, they would have to pay
sums that exceeded three months of insurance charges at then
current rates;
2. appointing Richard Behfarin as class representative for each
class certified; and
3. appointing Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack and Robert Mobasseri as
class counsel for each class certified.[CC]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Walter J. Lack, Esq.
Steven C. Shuman, Esq.
ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4113
Telephone: (310) 552 3800
Facsimile: (310) 552 9434
PURDUE PHARMA: Appeal Unlikely for $20MM Settlement Denial
----------------------------------------------------------
Michel Gagne, Esq. -- mgagne@mccarthy.ca -- Andree-Anne Labbe, Esq.
-- aalabbe@mccarthy.ca -- and Katherine A. Booth, Esq. --
kbooth@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for
Mondaq, report that in May,McCarthy Tetrault LLP blogged about a
recent decision of the Saskatchewan court in Perdikaris v. Purdue
Pharma et al., 2018 SKQB 86 refusing approval of a $20 million
class action settlement that had previously been approved in
various other provinces. McCarthy Tetrault noted that the
defendants had sought leave to appeal the decision.
It now appears there will be no appellate consideration of the
decision. In August, the defendants withdrew their application for
leave to appeal. As a result, the Saskatchewan court's refusal to
approve the settlement stands. [GN]
QVC INC: Faces Bristol County Retirement System's Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
QVC, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that the company and Qurate Retail, Inc. have
been named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit
entitled, Bristol County Retirement System v. Qurate Retail, Inc.
On September 6, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed
by a purported stockholder of Qurate Retail, Inc. ("Qurate Retail")
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado:
Bristol County Retirement System v. Qurate Retail, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02300.
The complaint names as defendants Qurate Retail, its president and
chief executive officer, its chairman of the board, the former
chief financial officer of QVC, Inc. ("QVC") and the former
president and chief executive officer of zulily, llc.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and alleges that the defendants made
materially misleading statements with respect to growth at QVC and
zulily, llc and QVC's Easy-Pay program. The complaint seeks
compensatory damages and interest in an unspecified amount, costs
and attorneys’ fees.
QVC said, "Qurate Retail intends to vigorously defend against this
action and similar actions, if any, that might be filed in the
future."
QVC, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, markets and sells
various consumer products through merchandise-focused televised
shopping programs, the Internet, and mobile applications. The
company operates in two segments, QVC-U.S. and QVC-International.
It provides home, beauty, apparel, jewelry, accessory, and
electronics products. The company was founded in 1986 and is
headquartered in West Chester, Pennsylvania. QVC, Inc. is a
subsidiary of Liberty Interactive Corporation.
RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit asserting Americans with Disabilities Act
violation has been filed against Radiology Associates of Brooklyn
LLP.
The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Radiology Associates of
Brooklyn LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09486 (S.D. N.Y., Oct.
16, 2018).
Radiology Associates of Brooklyn offers clinical services, images
and diagnoses critical to determining care and treatment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
The Marks Law Firm PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com
RENZENBERGER INC: McConville Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kristina McConville, the
Plaintiff, vs. Renzenberger, Inc., the Defendant, Case
2:17-cv-02972-FMO-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin
entered an order on October 1, 2018:
1. vacating all pending motions and deadlines;
2. directing Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification
and preliminary approval of settlement agreement no later than
October 31, 2018; and
3. advising Plaintiff that the court will not grant the motion
unless it includes a discussion and evidentiary support, where
appropriate, regarding the following issues:
(A) All class and FLSA certification requirements, including
declarations from proposed class representatives as to the adequacy
of their representation of the class;
(B) Whether the settlement is within a range of possible
judicial approval, including the fairness of its terms and
settlement amount to the class members;
(C) The arm's-length negotiation of the settlement
discussion(s), including whether, and to what extent, the proposed
class representatives were involved in the negotiation(s);
(D) Incentive payments and the standard set forth in Radcliffe
v. Experian Info. Solutions Inc., 715 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2013),
including: (i) declarations from the proposed class representatives
regarding the time, risk, and burden carried by them in this
action, and the benefit they provided to counsel and/or the class
throughout the litigation; (ii) the distribution of payments and
range of award amounts to class members; and (iii) whether the
incentive payments are conditioned on approval of the settlement;
(E) Adequacy of the class notice, including whether and how it
fairly apprises the putative class members of the terms of the
proposed settlement, and of the options available to them in
connection with the settlement and court proceedings;
(F) How the settlement will be administered, including the
proposed amount and cap to be paid to the settlement administrator;
and
(G) The parties should carefully evaluate the scope of the
release of claims. With respect to absent class members, the court
generally disfavors broad releases and waivers pursuant to
California Civil Code section 1542.
The Court said, "Failure to file the motion for preliminary
approval by the deadline set by the court shall result in dismissal
of the case for failure to prosecute and/or to comply with a court
order. Defendant may also file a brief in support of the motion for
preliminary approval by the deadline set".[CC]
RV CO: Settles WARN Class Action for $1.2MM
-------------------------------------------
Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, reports that an RV company that
shuttered in 2016 and the two entities that allegedly owned it have
agreed to a $1.2 million deal to settle claims in a certified class
action. [GN]
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Lil' Man Moves for Certification of 2 Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled LIL' MAN IN THE BOAT, INC., a
California Corporation v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and SAN
FRANCISCO PORT COMMISSION, operating under the title PORT OF SAN
FRANCISCO, ELAINE FORBES, Interim Executive Director of the San
Francisco Port; PETER DAILEY, Deputy Director, Maritime, the San
Francisco Port; JEFF BAUER, Deputy Director of Real Estate, the San
Francisco Port; JOE MONROE, Harbormaster, South Beach Harbor, Pier
40, Case No. 3:17-cv-00904-JST (N.D. Cal.), moves for an order
certifying two classes:
(1) Damages Class:
All entities that paid a fee for commercial vessel
landings at Pier 40 in San Francisco at the North Dock
(from February 23, 2015 to April 24, 2017) or at South
Dock (from April 25, 2017 to the date of class
certification); and
(2) Declaratory Relief Class:
All entities that were asked sign the 2016 Landing Rights
Agreement to use Pier 40 to make commercial vessel
landings, either at the North Dock (from February 23, 2015
to April 24, 2017) or at the South Dock (from April 25,
2017 to the date of class certification).
In its complaint, Lil' Man in the Boat, Inc., challenges the fees
imposed by Defendants City and County of San Francisco and the San
Francisco Port Commission (operating under the title of the Port of
San Francisco) as well as by individual Defendants Forbes, Dailey,
Bauer, and Monroe, on the Plaintiff and other entities operating
commercial charter vessels landing at Pier 40, in South Beach
Harbor, in San Francisco. The Plaintiff contends that the fees
imposed, and the now-mandatory 2016 Landing Rights Agreement,
violate the Tonnage Clause, the Rivers and Harbors Act, and the
Commerce Clause.
The Court will commence a hearing on November 8, 2018, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Ongaro, Esq.
ONGARO PC
50 California Street, Suite 3325
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 433-3900
Facsimile: (415) 433-3950
E-mail: dongaro@ongaropc.com
SENIOR LIFESTYLE: Slaaen Seeks to Recover OT Pay for Caregivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTA SLAAEN and JULIE HOAGLAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. SENIOR LIFESTYLE CORPORATION and SL
GREENFIELD, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01562-JPS (E.D. Wisc., October 3,
2018), is brought on behalf of current and former hourly-paid,
non-exempt Caregiver, Health Unit Clerk, and Director-level
employees of the Defendants for purposes of obtaining relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws for alleged unpaid overtime compensation and
damages.
Senior Lifestyle Corporation is a commercial entity with a
principal address located in Chicago, Illinois. Senior Lifestyle
provides memory care, skilled nursing, rehabilitation, assisted
living, and housing services to primarily the elderly, aging, and
geriatric population across the United States.
SL Greenfield, LLC, is a commercial entity with a principal address
located in Chicago, Illinois. SL Greenfield, also commonly known
as "Hickory Park Independent Living," is an independent living and
assisted living facility that provides housing, services, and care
to the elderly, aging, and geriatric population.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
Matthew J. Tobin, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
mtobin@walcheskeluzi.com
SENTINEL RESOURCES: Gibbs Suit Asserts Usury, RICO Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Darlene Gibbs, Stephanie Edwards, Patrick Inscho and Isabel Deleon,
on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Mark Curry, Brian McGowan, Eric Lau and Sentinel
Resources, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00654, (E.D. Va.,
September 25, 2018) seeks redress for violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and Virginia Usury Laws.
Mark Curry, Brian McGowan, Eric Lau, and Sentinel Resources
operated and participated in the alleged enterprise revolving
around Great Plains Lending, LLC. It facilitated the making and
collection of high-interest loans in the name of Great Plains -- an
entity formed under tribal law to ostensibly shield the scheme
through dubious claims of sovereign immunity. Defendants
participated in ventures with Native American tribes so they can
use tribal immunity as a shield to evade state lending laws, says
the complaint.
According to the complaint, although Great Plains was held out as
the "lender," the Otoe-Missouria Tribe had minimal involvement in
the operations and received a mere 6% of the revenue from the
loans. Said loans exceed 12% annual percentage rate under
Virginia's usury laws.
Plaintiffs are borrowers who were charged an interest rate far in
excess of the enforceable rate established by Virginia law. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
craig@clalegal.com
elizabeth@clalegal.com
- and -
James W. Speer, Esq.
VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER
919 E. Main Street, Suite 610
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: (804)782-9430
Fax: (804)649-0974
Email: jay@vplc.org
SEVEN-ONE-SEVEN: Wins Approval of Bodie Class Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Steven D. Merryday granted the motion to approve
settlement filed by the parties in the lawsuit styled MARCUS BODIE
v. SEVEN-ONE-SEVEN PARKING SERVICES, INC., Case No.
8:18-cv-00986-SDM-CPT (M.D. Fla.).
The parties' settlement is approved, and the action is dismissed
with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending
motion and to close the case.
Marcus Bodie and 14 opt-in plaintiffs sued Seven-One-Seven under
the Fair Labor Standards Act. The opt-in plaintiffs are Jeser
Alejo, James Allen, Emanuel Cochran, Dylan Dyer, Mary Hoffmeister,
Breon Jennings, Christopher Jones, Jeffrey Miles, Edwin Ramos,
Kelly Reilly, Nicholas Shave, Arjay Smith, Johnnie Stewart and
Matthew Walton.[CC]
SONIC CORPORATION: Alcoa Community Credit Union Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sonic Corporation et
al. The case is styled as Alcoa Community Federal Credit Union
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Sonic Corporation, Sonic Industries Services Inc.,
Sonic Capital LLC, Sonic Franchising LLC, Sonic Industries LLC,
Sonic Restaurants Inc, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00770-BSM (E.D.
Ark., Oct. 16, 2018).
Sonic Corp. operates and franchises a chain of quick-service
drive-in restaurants in the United States. As of August 31, 2017,
the company operated 3,593 Sonic Drive-Ins in 45 states, of which
228 were owned and operated by the company and 3,365 were owned and
operated by franchisees. The company also owns and leases 135
properties; and sublease 53 properties to franchisees and other
parties.
Sonic Industries Services Inc. operates and franchises restaurants.
The company was incorporated in 1973 and is based in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma. Sonic Industries Services Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of Sonic Corp.
Sonic Franchising LLC licenses and franchises traditional and
drive-in restaurants. The company was founded in 2011 and is based
in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Sonic Franchising LLC operates as a
subsidiary of Sonic Corp.
Sonic Industries LLC operates as a subsidiary of Sonic Corp.
Sonic Restaurants, Inc. develops and operates drive in restaurants
which are owned by Sonic Corp. The company was founded in 1978 and
is based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Sonic Restaurants, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Sonic Corp.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karen Sharp Halbert, Esq.
Roberts Law Firm, P.A.
Post Office Box 241790
Little Rock, AR 72223-1790
Phone: (501) 821-5575
Fax: (501) 821-4474
Email: karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us
- and -
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
Roberts Law Firm, P.A.
Post Office Box 241790
Little Rock, AR 72223-1790
Phone: (501) 821-5575
Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
- and -
Stephanie Egner Smith, Esq.
Roberts Law Firm, P.A.
Post Office Box 241790
Little Rock, AR 72223-1790
Phone(501) 821-5575
Email: stephanieegner@robertslawfirm.us
STORAGE GENIUS: Guerrero Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY GUERRERO, HENRY O. PROPPER, and other similarly-situated
individuals v. THE STORAGE GENIUS, INC., and GERSON CALDERON,
individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-24070-KMM (S.D. Fla., October 3,
2018), seeks to recover from the Defendants alleged overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's
fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Storage Genius, Inc., is a Florida corporation doing business
in Miami-Dade County. Gerson Calderon is the owner, president and
general manager of The Storage Genius.
The Storage Genius is a company providing services to the
warehousing and storage business. The Company sells and installs
all kind of warehousing and storage systems, fixture, and
equipment. The Company provides warehouse and storage
installations across state lines.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
STUCKY LAUER: Seeks Final Okay of $6K Settlement in Maloy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit entitled SAMUEL MALOY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STUCKY,
LAUER & YOUNG, LLP, Case No. 1:17-cv-00336-TLS (N.D. Ind.), move
the Court to enter an order that finally certifies the class for
settlement purposes and grants final approval of the proposed class
settlement agreement resolving their claims under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
The Class was conditionally certified, and the Settlement
preliminarily approved, on May 29, 2018. After successfully
delivering class notice to 889 of the 925 class members -- or 96%
percent -- the Parties have received no objections to the proposed
settlement or requests for exclusion from the Class.
If given final approval, then, pursuant to the Settlement, Class
Counsel will distribute the $6,000 settlement fund to the Class.
From this amount, $1,000 will be distributed to the Plaintiff for
his service as a class representative. The remaining $5,000 will
be distributed by Class Counsel to the 889 members of the Class for
whom the Parties possess valid addresses -- in the form of checks
in the amount of $5.62.
Once the funds have been distributed, Class Counsel will submit a
motion for an award of attorney's fees and expenses, including the
costs of distributing notice and settlement checks to the Class.
The Defendant has agreed not to contest an award of fees up to
$30,000, or reasonable costs and expenses up to $3,000.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russell S. Thompson IV, Esq.
THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
Mesa, AZ 85206
Telephone: (602) 388-8898
Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Briane M. House, Esq.
SKILES DETRUDE
150 East Market Street, Suite 200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 321-2407
E-mail: bhouse@skilesdetrude.com
SYNUTRA INT'L: Del. High Court Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leo E. Strine, Jr. of the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed
the Court of Chancery's dismissal of the case, ARTHUR FLOOD,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL, INC., LIANG
ZHANG, JINRONG CHEN, LEI LIN, YALIN WU, XIUQING MENG, BEAMS POWER
MERGER SUB LIMITED, and HOULIHAN LOKEY CAPITAL, INC., Defendants
Below, Appellee, Case No. 101, 2018 (Del.)
The case comes before the Court from a dismissal of the Plaintiff's
complaint by the Court of Chancery. Liang Zhang and entities
related to him controlled 63.5% of Synutra's stock. In January
2016, Zhang proposed to take Synutra private by acquiring the rest
of the stock he did not control. In an initial letter, Zhang
proposed purchasing the remaining shares at $5.91, but he did not
include a requirement that the sale be conditioned on the approval
of a special committee and an affirmative vote of a majority of the
minority stockholders. To assist him in the proposed merger, Zhang
retained Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. Although Davis Polk was
traditionally Synutra's corporate counsel, Synutra's CFO agreed to
waive Davis Polk's conflicts of interest before the Board met to
discuss Zhang's proposed merge.
One week after Zhang issued his proposal, the Board met and formed
a Special Committee. Before the meeting, the Board agreed that it
would not substantively evaluate Zhang's proposal. Although Davis
Polk now represented Zhang, it advised the Board at this meeting on
its fiduciary duties.
Two weeks after the initial offer, and only one week after the
Special Committee was formed, Zhang sent a second letter to the
Special Committee stipulating that he would not proceed with the
transaction unless it was approved by the Special Committee and
approved by the holders of a majority of the voting stock not
controlled by Zhang. No negotiations had commenced as of that
time; the Special Committee had not met and the complaint is devoid
of any facts suggesting that the Special Committee and Zhang had
engaged in any economic negotiations.
After receiving Zhang's second offer -- proposing the same price as
the first offer -- on Jan. 30, 2016, the Special Committee hired
Houlihan Lokey and Cleary Gottlieb as its independent financial and
legal advisors. Houlihan began discussions with management
regarding the company's financial projections. The Special
Committee met again on July 20, 2016 and decided to have Houlihan
initiate a market check. None of the 25 potential bidders Houlihan
contacted were interested, which is not surprising given Zhang's
63.5% voting control and the lack of any promise that he was a
willing seller.
In August 2016, management provided Houlhian with updated, lower
projections. Houlihan provided an updated financial analysis to
the Special Committee on Sept. 8, 2016. At that meeting, after
seven months of analysis and consultation with its advisors, the
Special Committee authorized Houlihan to negotiate a higher price
with Zhang. The next day, Houlihan met with Zhang, and Zhang
agreed to increase his offer to $6.05 per share.
The Special Committee met again on Sept. 22, 2016 and ultimately
agreed to accept the $6.05 price, a 2.4% bump from Zhang's original
offer, a 58% premium to the trading price of Synutra's stock when
the offer was first made public, a 31% and 20% premium to the 30-
and 60-day volume-weighted trading averages, respectively, and a
price that Houlihan viewed as fair.
The Plaintiff argues that this price was not fair. But, he fails
to allege any lack of independence on the part of the Special
Committee, and admits that the Special Committee met 15 times over
a nine-month period and was advised by independent financial,
legal, and economic advisors. At bottom, the Plaintiff just takes
issue with the economic outcome of the negotiation and questions
how skillful the Special Committee and its advisors were. He does
not allege that the majority-of-the-minority vote secured to
approve the merger was coerced or not fully informed.
Following briefing and oral argument, in an order dated Feb. 2,
2018, the Court of Chancery dismissed all claims. It found the
Kahn v. M&F Worldwide Corp. ("MFW") requirements satisfied, and
because Plaintiff did not allege waste, it dismissed the
complaint.
In the appeal, the Plaintiff does not quibble with the MFW standard
itself, but argues that the Court of Chancery misapplied it in two
respects. Despite the fact that the controlling stockholder here
conditioned his second offer on approval by the Special Committee
and an affirmative majority-of-the-minority vote before any
substantive economic negotiations occurred between himself and the
Special Committee, he argues that, because Zhang's initial offer
letter did not contain the Special Committee approval and
majority-of-the-minority vote conditions, the business judgment
rule does not apply. In the Plaintiff's view, if a controller's
first approach does not contain the required conditions, then it is
stuck with entire fairness review, even if the controller still
commits itself to MFW's requirements early on before any economic
negotiations.
In MFW, the Court held that business judgment review applied to a
merger proposed by a controlling stockholder conditioned before the
start of negotiations on both the approval of an independent,
adequately-empowered Special Committee that fulfills its duty of
care; and the uncoerced, informed vote of a majority of the
minority stockholders.
In the appeal, the question is whether the Court of Chancery
properly applied MFW by reading it as: i) allowing for the
application of the business judgment rule if the controlling
stockholder conditions its bid on both of the key procedural
protections at the beginning stages of the process of considering a
going private proposal and before any economic negotiations
commence; and ii) requiring the Court of Chancery to apply
traditional principles of due care and to hold that no litigable
question of due care exists if the complaint fails to allege that
an independent special committee acted with gross negligence.
In its previous affirmance of the Court of Chancery in Swomley v.
Schlecht, the Court held that an interpretation of MFW based on
these principles was correct.
As to the first point, what is critical for the application of the
business judgment rule is that the controller accept that no
transaction goes forward without special committee and
disinterested stockholder approval early in the process and before
there has been any economic horse trading. Stressing that in the
controller's first expression of interest it failed to condition
its proposal on the satisfaction of those two key conditions, the
Plaintiff ignores that the controller quickly conditioned its offer
on both of MFW's dual requirements -- approval by an independent
Special Committee and an affirmative vote by a majority of the
minority stockholders -- before the Special Committee had even
hired counsel.
MFW's required preconditions were therefore in place before any
economic negotiation between the Special Committee and the
controller occurred. Thus, before the Special Committee began
substantive deliberations, it knew that any merger was conditioned
on both its approval and the approval of a majority of the
disinterested stockholders. So, consistent with our prior decision
to identical effect in Swomley, Judge Strine therefore agrees with
the Court of Chancery that MFW applies when the controller
announces the conditions `before any negotiations took place.
As to the second point, the central objective of the MFW standard
is to provide an incentive for controllers to embrace the
procedural approach most favorable to minority investors, with the
incentive of obtaining the protection of the business judgment rule
standard of review. To lard on to the due care review a
substantive review of the economic fairness of the deal approved by
a Special Committee, as the plaintiff advocates, is to import
improperly into a due care analysis the type of scrutiny used in
entire fairness review and in appraisal cases. Thus, in Swomley
and in the case, the Court of Chancery properly held that the
business judgment rule applied when the other conditions of MFW
applied and the Special Committee employed qualified legal and
financial advisors and indisputably engaged in a deliberative
process that cannot rationally be characterized as grossly
negligent.
In sum, Judge Strine holds that adhering to a bright-line
requirement that the MFW Framework be precisely implemented is
appropriate in the context of controller squeeze-out transactions
where the outset of the process is within the control of the
controller. The controller's ability to control the outset
justifies insistence on the formalistic requirement of precisely
implementing the MFW Framework. M&F Worldwide's strict and
detailed roadmap is particularly appropriate where the courts must
address whether the minority stockholders claims should be
dismissed before discovery, and in ascertaining which standard of
review should apply -- as opposed to other contexts where we have
eschewed rigid "blueprints."
Finally, the Judge is unsympathetic to the Defendants' argument
that sticking to a bright line rule would potentially punish
innocent failures to include the conditions in the controller's
first written proposal and thereby disadvantage minority
stockholders. The MFW Framework was intended to be a clear roadmap
in controller buyouts and corporate counsel who routinely practice
in the area are familiar with it.
Accordingly, he affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 12, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/YZ74Gf from Leagle.com.
Ryan M. Ernst, Esquire -- rernst@oelegal.com -- Daniel P. Murray,
Esquire, O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; Donald
J. Enright Esquire -- denright@zlk.com -- (Argued), Elizabeth K.
Tripodi Esquire -- etripodi@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant, Arthur Flood.
Matthew E. Fischer, Esquire -- mfischer@potteranderson.com --,
Matthew R. Dreyfuss, Esquire , Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Roger A. Cooper, Esquire -- racooper@cgsh.com
-- Rishi N. Zutshi, Esquire (Argued), Vanessa C. Richardson,
Esquire -- vrichardson@cgsh.com -- Hana Choi, Esquire --
hchoi@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York,
New York, for Appellees, Synutra International, Inc, Jinrong Chen,
Lei Lin, and Yalin Wu.
William M. Lafferty, Esquire -- wlafferty@mnat.com -- John P.
DiTomo, Esquire -- jditomo@mnat.com -- Morris, Nichols, Arsht &
Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Lawrence Portnoy, Esquire --
lawrence.portnoy@davispolk.com -- Rebecca L. Martin, Esquire --
rebecca.martin@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New
York, New York, for Appellees, Liang Zhang, Xiuqing Meng, and Beams
Power Investment Ltd.
TATA MOTORS: Nano Consumer Urged to Consider Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Yogesh Sapkale, writing for Moneylife, reports that Tata Motors may
have stopped production of its high-profile 'small car' (it will
now be available only on order basis), but the problems do not seem
to go away.
A buyer, who approached the consumer forum claiming a design flaw
in his Nano, has been advised to find like-minded customers to file
a class-action suit against Tata Motors. According to this
consumer, about 500,000 Tata Nano buyers are probably affected by
the same design defects and asserts Tata Motors ought to recall all
the affected cars immediately.
Here is what happened with Prakash Chanderkar, a mechanical
engineer, when he bought the Nano. "I own two Tata Nano cars. I
experienced a life-threatening situation while driving one of the
Nanos. After some investigation, I found two problems in the design
of Nano car. When certain part of the bottom place corrodes, the
steering of Tata Nano completely fails. Secondly, after over
5,000km journey, the seal of the coolant pump shaft starts leaking.
While this is common for all engines in all the cars, in the case
of Nano, the leaked coolant enters into the crankcase chamber and
contaminates engine lubricating oil. This causes damage to the
engine journal bearing on the engine crankshaft which can lead to
seizure of engine or total failure of an engine of Nano," he says.
He filed a complaint, before the district consumer forum, which
however, rejected it on point of limitation from the date of cause
of action. Mr Chanderkar, then approached the state commission.
The Bench of Justice AP Bhangale and Dr SK Kakade, of the
Maharashtra State Consumer Commission, stated, "The averments
general in nature as also the prayers in the complaint reflects
that the complainant (Mr Chanderkar) is interested in relief of
broad direction to the opponent (Tata Motors) to recall the 'Nano'
cars on the road and to take corrective measures in respect of
certain portions of the car engine to make it road worthy."
Ironically, unlike most consumers, Mr Chanderkar did not merely
want his issue resolved—something that Tata Motors was willing to
do. It has even offered to buy back his car after adjusting
depreciation value if he buys a new Nano. But he flatly refused to
buy Nano again.
So the consumer court ruled as follows in its order dated 18 July
2018: ". . . we direct the complainant (Mr Chanderkar) to issue a
public notice in leading newspapers, which can inform the public in
general about defects in 'Nano' cars manufactured by Tata Motors so
that complainant's grievances can be supported and considered as a
class action."
Mr Chanderkar is seeking responses from Tata Nano owners and had
created a web portal www.no2nano.in for this. The public notice for
class action suit is returnable before the Consumer Commission on
28 September 2018. Nano buyers affected by similar issues can
contact Mr Chanderkar through the website.
Talking about the issue, Mr Chanderkar said, "Tata Motors noted
these defects early on and should have recalled these cars and
offer some solution. However, they continued to manufacture and
sell the Nano with these defects, thus exposing unfortunate and
unsuspecting buyers to life threatening accidents. I faced this
situation on 11 July 2016 the steering wheel of my Nano swayed
uncontrollably and was by luck, I was saved from getting hit by a
truck on a fly over. When I took the car to Concord Motors, the
authorised service centre of Tata Motors at Worli, the technician
told me that this (the steering wheel) was a problem due to rusted
bottom part of the car. He even showed me how the rusted part was
moving left and right with the steering wheel."
Our mails to senior officials of Tata Motors, including its head
for corporate communication, remain unanswered till writing this
story. We will update this story, as and when we receive any reply
from Tata Motors.
Only one Nano was assembled in June 2018 against the 275 assembled
in June 2017. Due to the low sales of the model, Tata Motors
announced the end of production without any direct successor to
Nano.
Small Car's Big Issues
Earlier in 2010, Tata Motors had rebutted some media reports about
recall of Nano, saying that there were no generic defects in its
small car. It, however, had said that the company can provide
additional protection to the exhaust system of the vehicle and the
electrical system at no extra cost. During an investigation by a
team of internal and international experts, Tata Motors had found
instances of "additional foreign electrical equipment installed" or
"foreign material left on the exhaust system".
Next year, Tata Motors agreed to change free of cost old starter
motors in about 140,000 Nano cars. Vehemently denying this is a
recall, the company had said it changed the old starter motor with
a new and 'better' one, an exercise that reportedly cost it around
Rs110 crore.
There were reports of several fire incidents involving the Nano.
The company denied those were connected to the car's design or its
parts and blamed 'foreign electrical equipment' found on top of the
exhaust system. The company offered to retrofit the exhaust and
electrical systems but refused to recall the cars. [GN]
TD AMERITRADE: Krukever Seeks to Certify ES Options Holders Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DIEGO KRUKEVER, KAREM
SANDGARTEN and AMIR RAHIMI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., and TD AMERITRADE
FUTURES & FOREX LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-21399-CMA (S.D. Fla.), ask
the Court to certify this class:
All persons, corporations and other legal entities that held
"short put" positions in ES Options with TDAFF on
February 5, 2018, who were damaged by TDAFF's forced
liquidation of their ES Options between the hours of
3:15 pm Central time on February 5, 2018, and 8:30 a.m.
Central time on February 6, 2018.
Early in the afternoon on February 5, 2018, the U.S. financial
markets experienced a drastic spike in volatility and a
simultaneous precipitous decline in the S&P 500 market index,
according to the complaint. This caused the prices of futures tied
to the S&P 500 index, including S&P Emini futures contracts, to
drop as well. The Plaintiffs and class members each held option
positions on those S&P Emini futures contracts (the "ES Options").
Pursuant to an unwritten policy uniformly implemented and applied
by TD to the accounts of each and every Plaintiff and class member,
TD liquidated the positions held in those accounts that went
unsecured or "negative."
The Plaintiffs contend that their claims are typical of those held
by the other class members, who suffered damage as a result of TD's
conduct. The Plaintiffs assert that the class they seek to certify
is comprised of similarly situated TD accountholders aggrieved by
the same wrongful course of conduct -- TD's reckless and
commercially unreasonable liquidation of their ES Options in the
highly illiquid and volatile After Hours Market on Feb. 5,
2018.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frank R. Rodriguez, Esq.
Paulino A. Nunez Jr., Esq.
RODRIGUEZ TRAMONT & NUNEZ P.A.
255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 600
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 350-2300
Facsimile: (305) 350-2525
E-mail: frr@rtgn-law.com
pan@rtgn-law.com
- and -
Lawrence A. Kellogg, Esq.
Jason K. Kellogg, Esq.
Victoria J. Wilson, Esq.
LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP
201 South Biscayne Boulevard
Citigroup Center, 22nd Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 403-8788
Facsimile: (305) 403-8789
E-mail: lak@lklsg.com
jk@lklsg.com
vjw@lklsg.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam Michael Schachter, Esq.
Gerald Edward Greenberg, Esq.
GELBER SCHACHTER & GREENBERG, P.A.
1221 Brickell Ave., Suite 2010
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 728-0950
Facsimile: (305) 728-0951
E-mail: aschachter@gsgpa.com
ggreenberg@gsgpa.com
- and -
Richard Morvillo, Esq.
Robert Stern, Esq.
Daniel Streim, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
Columbia Center
1152 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 339-8400
E-mail: rmorvillo@orrick.com
rstern@orrick.com
dstreim@orrick.com
TDT CONSULTING: Cervantez Seeks Wages for Hours Worked Over 40
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Cervantez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TDT Consulting, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-02547 (N.D. Tex., September 25, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.
Cervantez worked for TDT as a Solids Control Technician and claims
to be misclassified as an independent contractor. Cervantez claims
to have worked hours longer than forty hours in a single workweek
but was not paid one-and-one-half their regular rate. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry Street, Suite 2365
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone: (817) 479-9229
Fax: (817) 887-1878
Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com
pamela@herrmannlaw.com
TICKETMASTER: Sued Over Broker Friendly Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Ian Courtney, writing for CelebrityAccess, reports that
Ticketmaster is facing at least two potential class action lawsuits
after the Toronto Star and CBC reported on the company's alleged
broker friendly business practices.
Regina based lawyer Tony Merchant told the CBC that he plans to sue
Ticketmaster and its parent company Live Nation, alleging the
entertainment giant mislead consumers on ticket prices.
Mr. Merchant, who already has a class action suit against
Ticketmaster over allegedly inflated prices told the CBC, he's
planning to expand the suit based on the Toronto Star/CBC
reporting. Merchant said he would open the class to all Canadian
citizens who have been affected by Ticketmaster and believes the
damages could amount to more than $100 million.
"It's a result of the Star/CBC investigation that got us looking at
whether we can advance a claim successfully for breach of
competition and consumer affairs legislation," Mr. Merchant told
the CBC. "We knew about the issues of scalpers. But we did not know
there was evidence available of them working conjunctively with
scalpers. Getting those things on camera are things a court will
listen to . . . You've sent us back to the drawing board. "
In the U.S., the consumer litigation law firm Hagens Berman
launched a solicitation for class members for a suit to seek
"relief for the many Ticketmaster customers who purchased inflated
resale tickets through TradeDesk" as well as an injunction to end
Live Nation to end its involvement in the business.
"Reports indicate that Ticketmaster accepts kickbacks by secretly
facilitating ticket sales through scalpers at a higher cost,
collecting profits from both the original and secondary sales of
tickets," the firm wrote in its solicitation. "Ticketmaster has
actually facilitated the sale of tickets to the secondary market in
order to receive a second cut on each ticket -- one that is even
more than the cut Ticketmaster received on the original ticket
sale."
The timing of the Toronto Star/CBC revelations came at a
particularly bad time for Ticketmaster as the secondary market is
receiving renewed scrutiny in the UK, Canada and the U.S.
In the UK, government market regulators have launched legal action
against Viagogo, a key player in the secondary market there,
alleging deceptive pricing. In the U.S., New York Attorney General
Barbara Underwood launched a lawsuit against TicketNetwork over
broker drop-shipping practices and in Canada, the Competition
Bureau filed suit against Ticketmaster earlier this year over what
it contends are misleading ticket prices.
In a carefully worded statement following the Star/CBC reporting,
Ticketmaster categorically denied having any system in place to
enable resellers to acquire large volumes of tickets at the expense
of consumers. [GN]
TORONTO HYDRO: St. James Town Residents File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Ngabo, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of residents
displaced from a St. James Town property after a six-alarm fire in
August.
Lawyers from Landy Marr Kats LLP, acting on behalf of displaced
residents from 650 Parliament St., filed the lawsuit on Sept. 14 in
Ontario Superior Court and are seeking a $50 million compensation
in damages.
In their statement of claim, they accuse the defendants -- four
property owners, the property management and Toronto Hydro -- of
negligence, breach of contract and breach of the Residential
Tenancies Act, among other things.
More than 1,500 residents of the building near Parliament and
Wellesley Sts. were forced out of their units when a fire broke out
in the afternoon of Aug. 21. Toronto Fire officials have said the
incident was caused by a major electrical failure, and
investigations are ongoing.
City officials and the Red Cross scrambled to find temporary
housing for the displaced people, and have encouraged them to seek
out their own housing arrangements as repairs could take up to four
months. Nearly 200 of the residents are currently sheltered inside
the Regent Park Community Centre, which has since closed to the
public.
As of Sept. 24, no statement of defence had been filed at the
court. Defendants have 40 days from the day a lawsuit is served to
file a defence. [GN]
TRIBUNE MEDIA: Faces Securities Class Action in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on Sept. 24 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Tribune Media Company (TRCO)
securities between November 29, 2017 through July 16, 2018 (the
"Class Period").
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and omitted
material adverse facts concerning the conduct of Sinclair Broadcast
Group Inc. (Sinclair) (SBGI) during the process of seeking
regulatory approval necessary to complete a proposed merger between
Tribune and Sinclair. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
while the defendants frequently discussed the regulatory steps
necessary to complete the Merger in public statements and
presentations, including Sinclair's purported agreement to take
certain actions to secure regulatory approval, the defendants
misstated or omitted the fact that: (1) Sinclair was refusing to
divest itself of television stations in certain markets necessary
to secure regulatory approval; and (2) Sinclair was taking the
position that it was not legally or contractually obligated to
complete the identified divestitures to ensure regulatory approval.
As a result of the defendants false and misleading statements and
omissions, Tribune common stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and such inflation was removed when
it was revealed that the Merger had not received regulatory
approval by the applicable deadline and would not close.
If you purchased Tribune Media securities during the Class Period
or continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com,
or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact
form. There is no cost or obligation to you.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a New
York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities
litigation. [GN]
UFC: Former MMA Fighters Submit Final Written Arguments
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gift, writing for Forbes.com, reports that the group of former
fighters suing the UFC for alleged monopolization and
monopsonization in the MMA industry submitted their final written
arguments to the judge on Sept. 21 in an attempt to prevent the UFC
from obtaining a summary judgment win and force the class-action
antitrust lawsuit to trial, likely next year.
In a heavily redacted opposition to the UFC's previously filed
motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs argued their case to
Las Vegas federal court Judge Richard Boulware.
The record shows: (1) [UFC] had monopoly and monopsony power as the
dominant MMA promoter -- that is, [UFC] was the only promoter that
could sell "major league" live MMA events broadcast in North
America and the only promoter that could hire MMA fighters to
compete in "major league" MMA events; (2) [UFC] willfully acquired
and maintained monopoly and monopsony power through exclusionary
conduct, including locking Fighters into long-term, exclusive
contracts, coercing Fighters to enter and extend those Exclusive
Contracts, and acquiring other MMA promoters that threatened the
UFC's dominance; and (3) [UFC] used its monopsony power to suppress
the compensation it paid its Fighters below competitive levels (and
its monopoly power to decrease the supply and inflate the prices of
MMA events ).
In other words, we're finally getting to the meat-and-potatoes of
this case: Did the UFC maintain and enhance its economic power and
put rival MMA promoters at a significant competitive disadvantage
through its use of long-term, exclusive fighter contracts?
The other (and much weaker) claims that the UFC prevented competing
MMA promoters from accessing critical sponsors, television
networks, and venue space -- which I've affectionately referred to
as "The Carlos Newton" -- finally appear to have met their demise.
Plaintiffs' focus throughout the Sept. 21 filing is the claim that
the UFC deprived competitors "of a critical mass of marquee
Fighters, rendering them 'minor leagues.'"
If Judge Boulware determines that there are no genuine issues of
material fact, then the UFC could walk away with an early win just
as manager Al Haymon did last year in boxing's big antitrust case.
According to the filing, plaintiffs believe at least two disputed
issues are in play: (1) The UFC's alleged assumption that control
of top-ranked fighters matters the same for a promoter's market
power as control of fighters "competing at the margins of the
sport" and (2) claims the UFC faces competition from other MMA
promoters when it has allegedly admitted to being the "major
league" of MMA.
The filing is chock full of financial details, deposition quotes,
text messages and e-mails, virtually all of which were redacted,
leaving readers with a small taste of many of the plaintiffs'
arguments, but nowhere near a precise understanding. For example,
in referencing the UFC's 2014 match of restricted free agent
Gilbert Melendez's contract offer from Bellator, plaintiffs write,
"[UFC's] executives acknowledge the importance of blocking other
promoters' access to top Fighters to maintaining its dominance. In
February 2014, for example, after Lorenzo Fertitta exercised a
provision of [UFC's] Exclusive Contracts to prevent top Fighter
Gilbert Melendez from defecting to Bellator, Fertitta wrote to Dana
White: '[Redacted]'."
Plaintiffs repeatedly quote from depositions and documents that
essentially describe an economic network effect that exits in many
sports leagues (e.g., "Fighters 'generally have an interest in
competing against the best fighters' and customers 'like that too'
because putting 'good fighters against each other' creates 'more
energy.'") and appear to argue that competing MMA promoters would
need a critical mass of top fighters to overcome this network
effect, at least in part because the UFC refuses to co-promote with
other promotions.
Plaintiffs also home in on particular alleged UFC strategies such
as renegotiating before the end of a fighter's contract "to prevent
the Fighters from ever becoming free agents," unfavorable placement
on fight cards and not giving title shots unless fighters were
"locked-up long-term." The effect of these and other tactics,
plaintiffs argue, is to make UFC exclusive contracts "effectively
perpetual."
Critical Mass
An interesting portion of the filing was the plaintiffs' argument
that the UFC's alleged scheme prevented competing MMA promoters
from accessing a key input: A "critical mass" of top fighters. The
actual sworn testimony of those other MMA promoters on this subject
could be pivotal, an issue I've previously addressed.
In the publicly available and un-redacted portion of their
depositions, it doesn't appear that any of the other MMA promoters
testified to a meaningful foreclosure effect from the UFC's
exclusive contracts. If anything, the testimony of former IFL
co-founder Kurt Otto came the closest. He references not being able
to "get" fighters who are "locked up in a contract" in his key
quote. But he then immediately transitions into talent discovery,
where fighters are presumably not locked up by any major
promotions. "So I have to go all the way down to the gym level and
go find a new gym rat that has talent and build them up and start
from scratch. So, if you buy all the talent, your chances of
finding Conor McGregor are slim to none; this one is out of town."
While not exactly a "new gym rat," Conor McGregor was notoriously
(no pun intended) available for other MMA promoters to sign just 5
½ years ago coming out of Cage Warriors in Europe.
Another issue for the plaintiffs is that other current or former
promoters have been forceful in their testimony that the UFC has
not hindered their ability to compete. To combat this potentially
problematic testimony, plaintiffs note in their filing, "[UFC's]
citation to certain promoters' boasts that the UFC had not affected
their ability to sign Fighters, are not credible and are
disputed."
Plaintiffs question the credibility of Jeff Aronson (Titan FC) and
Shannon Knapp (Invicta FC) for having allegedly received
"substantial revenue" from the UFC and cite a 2008 media quote from
White about Elite XC as a "farm league" (a statement White did not
disagree with in his deposition).
Yet two pages later in White's deposition, he responded, "Should I
said I'm horrified and terrified of all this competition?" when
asked about a media quote in which he referred to IFL, Bodog, and
EliteXC as "feeder leagues."
White also testified that his job as a fight promoter is "to make
you not take your wife out on Saturday night, not go to a movie, or
whatever else you might want to do on Saturday night. My job is to
make you stay home and watch the UFC," implicitly acknowledging
potential competitive alternatives to the UFC in the output
market.
Yet at other points in his deposition excerpt, White made
statements upon which plaintiffs' attorneys were quick to pounce.
"Yeah, no. We're -- we're not in competition with boxing" was one
such example.
Expert Analyses
When it comes to the alleged anticompetitive effects of the UFC's
business strategies, plaintiffs hang their hat on an impact
regression by expert witness Dr. Hal Singer which purportedly shows
a negative correlation between the UFC's foreclosure share (percent
of MMA fighters under exclusive UFC contracts) and its wage share
(fighter compensation as a percentage of event revenues).
While this analysis has been highly disputed and subject to
multiple rounds of expert witness reports, Judge Boulware could
decide the reliability of Singer's work is an issue for trial or he
could side with the UFC's arguments in its Daubert motion to
exclude Singer's testimony and deal a crippling blow to the
plaintiffs case.
At present, many portions of the filing are difficult to critique
due to the many redactions. For example, while the UFC claims
Singer didn't perform a SSNDP test as part of his relevant input
market analysis, the plaintiffs claim he did. And while the UFC
claims it only raised PPV prices by $5 between 2010 (really, 2008)
and 2015 (excluding the UFC 168 rematch of Chris Weidman vs.
Anderson Silva which had a one-off higher price), plaintiffs appear
to incorporate an increasing UFC revenue share from PPV
distributors (effectively a lower price from its suppliers of
distribution services) and reach an entirely different conclusion.
They then cite redacted internal UFC documents and Deutsche Bank
deposition testimony that say, well, something that may or may not
have been interesting.
Output Reduction
The one area where redactions don't cause much of a problem are the
plaintiffs' seemingly incredible claims of MMA output reduction due
to the UFC's conduct. They note that the UFC restricted its PPV
output by (what other filings appear to describe as) a decline from
15 PPV events in 2010 to 13 in 2015. But annual UFC PPVs took off
in 2006 (from six in 2005 to 10 in 2006) and began to level off at
12-13 around 2008, with two higher years in 2010 and 2011 before
the explosion of non-PPV shows with the FOX deal in 2012 and Fight
Pass in 2014. Had 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, etc. been the base
year, UFC PPV output easily would've been flat or increasing.
To analyze the overall output of MMA events, Singer purportedly ran
a regression on the number of live MMA events from 2001 to 2010 and
extended the resulting trend line for 2011 on. UFC expert witness
Robert Topel attacks this as assuming "that this growth would
persist beyond 2010 is analogous to assuming children grow as much
between their tenth and twentieth birthdays as between birth and
their tenth birthdays" and yet he doesn't even mention the
substantial difference in the number of states in which MMA was
legalized and sanctioned over that same 10-year window (in broad
terms it went from very few in 2001 to a lot in 2010). The UFC
under Zuffa didn't even hold a domestic event outside of the five
states of Nevada, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida and Louisiana
until 2006 when California finally legalized the sport of MMA. So
if the purported statistical structure is true, this may well be a
situation where an expert witness's number crunching is detached
from an industry's reality.
As presently scheduled, the UFC will submit its final reply on
November 2nd and then we wait for word on when Judge Boulware will
hold a hearing. Outstanding issues on which he's yet to decide are
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the UFC's
Daubert motions on three plaintiff expert witnesses (Hal Singer,
Andrew Zimbalist and Guy Davis) and its summary judgment motions on
Nate Quarry individually and for the entire case.
Should the class be certified and the plaintiffs survive the UFC's
Daubert and summary judgment challenges, it will move to the trial
phase, where hopefully the annoying redactions finally start to
disappear. [GN]
UNITED STATES: 3rd Cir. Revives FDCPA Suit Over IRS Reporting
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wichert, writing for Law360, reports that a statement in debt
collection letters saying forgiveness of the debt may be reported
to the IRS could constitute a violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Court Enters Summary Judgment in Bauer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEAGHAN BAUER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ELISABETH DeVOS,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 17-1330 (RDM) (D. D.C.), Judge Randolph D. Moss of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the state
Plaintiffs' and the student borrower Plaintiffs' motions for
summary judgment, and denied the Department's cross-motion.
Bauer, Stephano Del Rose, and a coalition of 19 states and the
District of Columbia bring suit against the Department of Education
under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Bauer and Del
Rose attended New England Institute of Art ("NEIA"), a for-profit
college. Bauer attended a filmmaking program from 2011 to 2014.
Del Rose attended the same program from 2009 to 2014. Each
borrowed more than $30,000 in federal direct loans to finance his
or her attendance. Each now owes more than $40,000 to the
Department.
Bauer and Del Rose both seek loan forgiveness as a result of NEIA's
fraud and other related misconduct; they also wish to bring a class
action on behalf of students at NEIA. As such, they allege that
the continued delay in implementing the Borrower Defense
Regulations has impaired their ability to vindicate their rights
against NEIA and to obtain related relief.
The Plaintiffs challenge three agency actions delaying the
implementation of the "Borrower Defense Regulations," a package of
regulatory changes to federal student loan programs designed to
protect student loan borrowers from misleading, deceitful, and
predatory practices. The Borrower Defense Regulations were
published on Nov. 1, 2016, and were to become effective on July 1,
2017. Shortly before the effective date, however, the California
Association of Private Postsecondary Schools ("CAPPS"), brought
suit challenging the regulations, and, a week later, CAPPS sought a
preliminary injunction blocking the implementation of two changes.
That motion was never fully briefed or decided because the
Department, on its own accord, issued a stay under Section 705 of
the APA, postponing not only the effective date of the two changes
that CAPPS had asked the Court preliminarily to enjoin, but most of
the other portions of the regulations as well.
While the CAPPS litigation continued, the Department issued an
interim final rule on Oct. 24, 2017 that delayed the effective date
of the Borrower Defense Regulations to July 1, 2018, and a notice
of proposed rulemaking to further delay the effective date to July
1, 2019. Then, on Feb. 14, 2018, the Department issued a final
rule delaying the effective date of the Borrower Defense
Regulations until July 1, 2019.
Within weeks of the issuance of the Section 705 Stay, Bauer and Del
Rose (student borrowers who allege that they would benefit from the
Borrower Defense Regulations) and the coalition of nineteen states
and the District of Columbia filed separate suits seeking to
invalidate the stay. Over the course of the last year, both sets
of the Plaintiffs have amended their complaints to challenge the
additional delay actions taken in October 2017 and February 2018.
On March 1, 2018, the Court consolidated the student borrower and
state cases, stayed the CAPPS case pending resolution of this case,
and ordered a final round of summary judgment briefing.
The matter is now before the Court on cross-motions for summary
judgment filed by the state Plaintiffs, the student borrower
Plaintiffs, and the Department.
Judge Moss concludes that the Plaintiffs have standing to challenge
the delay actions. He finds that (i) the Oct. 24, 2017 Interim
Final Rule is based on an unlawful construction of the Higher
Education Act of 1965; (ii) the Feb. 14, 2018 Final Delay Rule is
procedurally invalid; (iii) the Section 705 Stay is judicially
reviewable; and (iv) the Department's Section 705 Stay is arbitrary
and capricious. He, accordingly, granted the state Plaintiffs' and
the student borrower Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, and
denied the Department's cross-motion.
Before entering a remedial decree, the Judge ordered the parties in
this case and the parties and proposed intervenors in CAPPS v.
DeVos, Civil Action No. 17-999, to appear for a status conference
on Sept. 14, 2018, at 10:30 a.m.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 12, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/Caua4o from Leagle.com.
MEAGHAN BAUER & STEPHANO DEL ROSE, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam
R. Pulver -- litigation@citizen.org -- PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION
GROUP, Scott Lawrence Nelson, PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP, Toby
R. Merrill -- tomerrill@law.harvard.edu -- LEGAL SERVICES CENTER OF
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL & Julie A. Murray, PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION
GROUP.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff, represented by Yael
Shavit, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, represented by
Bernard Ardavan Eskandari, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE &
Nicklas A. Akers, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, Plaintiff, represented by John A.B. Langmaid,
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL & Joseph J. Chambers, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY
GENERAL.
STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff, represented by Christian Douglas
Wright, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
ELISABETH DEVOS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Education, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & BETSY
DEVOS, defendant 17-1331, Defendants, represented by Karen Bloom,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & R. Charlie Merritt, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE Civil Division.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COSMETOLOGY SCHOOLS, Movant, represented by
Robert Lawrence Shapiro -- RShapiro@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris
LLP.
NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,
AMERICANS FOR FINANCIAL REFORM, BAY AREA LEGAL AID, CENTER FOR
RESPONSIBLE LENDING, COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES OF PHILADELPHIA,
CONSUMER ACTION, CONSUMERS UNION, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS
ADVOCATES, LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES, LEGAL SERVICES NYC,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING, NEW YORK
LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP, PUBLIC COUNSEL, PUBLIC LAW CENTER,
INSTITUTE FOR COLLEGE ACCESS & SUCCESS, UNITED STATES PUBLIC
INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP & YOUNG INVINCIBLES, Amicuss, represented
by Abigail E. Shafroth, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER.
LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW, Amicus, represented
by Jon M. Greenbaum -- jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org -- LAWYERS'
COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW.
INSTITUTE FOR POLICY INTEGRITY, Amicus, represented by Bethany A.
Davis Noll -- bethany.davisnoll@nyu.edu -- INSTITUTE FOR POLICY
INTEGRITY.
MICHAEL SANT'AMBROGIO, Professor & ADAM ZIMMERMAN, Amicuss,
represented by Brian G. Gilmore -- bgilmore@law.msu.edu -- MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY LAW CLINIC.
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE POSTSECONDARY SCHOOLS, Amicus,
represented by Clifford M. Sloan -- cliff.sloan@skadden.com --
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP.
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Phillips Securities Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY E. PHILLIPS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. USA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEPHEN P. HERBERT, and
PRIYANKA SINGH, Case No. 2:18-cv-14590-CCC-CLW (D.N.J., October 3,
2018), arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and certain misrepresentations
that resulted in the Company's common stock trading at artificially
inflated prices.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants represented that the
Company maintained adequate controls over financial reporting, and
that there were no changes in internal controls over financial
reporting that occurred that materially affected, or are reasonably
likely to materially affect, the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting, the Plaintiff asserts.
On September 11, 2018, before the market opened, the Company
disclosed that it would not be able to timely file its annual
report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, and that the
Company's Audit Committee, with the assistance of independent legal
and forensic accounting advisors, is in the process of conducting
an internal investigation of current and prior period matters
relating to certain of the Company's contractual arrangements,
including the accounting treatment, financial reporting and
internal controls related to such arrangements. On September 11,
2018, USA Technologies shares declined from a closing price on
September 10, 2018, of $15.30 per share, to close at $9.20 per
share, a decline of approximately 40% on heavier than usual
volume.
USA Technologies is incorporated in Pennsylvania and its principal
executive offices are located in Malvern, Pennsylvania. The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.
USA Technologies purports to be a premier digital payment, consumer
engagement and logistics service provider for the self-service
retail market. The Company is purportedly known for its ePort
Connect suite of services designed specifically for the self-serve,
unattended market. ePort Connect wirelessly facilitates electronic
payment options to consumers while providing operators with both
telemetry and machine-to-machine services. The technology is
primarily found in vending machines, kiosks and point-of-sale
terminals, but its products have extended the network to accept
recurring payments from a PC or retail outlets. It also works with
the taxi industry through smart phone devices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel B. Strauss, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
E-mail: jstrauss@kaplanfox.com
jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
- and -
William J. Pinilis, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
160 Morris Street
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone: (973) 656-0222
Facsimile: (973) 401-1114
E-mail: wpinilis@kaplanfox.com
WEST FOODS: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA and AMWA, Green Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA GREEN, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated v. WEST FOODS, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-02170-PKH (W.D.
Ark., October 3, 2018), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act as a result of the
Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and others
overtime compensation for all hours they worked in excess of 40 per
workweek.
West Foods, Inc., is a domestic corporation, which operates various
Subway franchises in Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
Sean Short, Esq.
Chris Burks, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
WIRELESS CONNECTION: Jones Seeks to Recover to Unpaid Back Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIKI JONES, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. WIRELESS CONNECTION,
CORP., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION AND MURAD BADER, INDIVIDUALLY, Case
No. 1:18-cv-06694 (N.D. Ill., October 3, 2018), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance to
recover unpaid back wages and liquidated damages.
Wireless Connection, Corp., is an Illinois corporation. Murad
Bader is the owner and President of the Company.
The Company owns and operates two Boost Mobile retail stores
located in Chicago, Illinois, that sell cell phones, cell phone
service plans and related accessories to customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 853-1450
E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com
YOUNGEVITY INT'L: Abante Rooter Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Youngevity International,
Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-05887 (N.D. Cal., September 25, 2018), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Youngevity International is a small business loan financing
company.
Abante Rooter and Plumbing is a rooting and plumbing business in
Emeryville, California. It received calls from the Defendant using
an automatic telephone dialing system offering its services. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Otero Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Abbey Lerman and Carmen Otero filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Carmen Otero, et al. v. Zeltiq
Aesthetics, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-03994-DMG-MRW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
alleged in their initial and amended complaints that Zeltiq, based
in Pleasanton and marketer and licenser of the cryolipolysis
procedure CoolSculpting, negligently misrepresents and makes false
claims about its medical treatment product. Specifically, the two
Plaintiffs allege the Company falsely advertises its CoolSculpting
to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
CoolSculpting is a non-invasive fat reduction procedure that
allegedly works by "freezing unwanted fat away," according to
claims on the Company's Web site.
The appellate case is captioned as Carmen Otero, et al. v. Zeltiq
Aesthetics, Inc., Case No. 18-56308, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by November 2, 2018;
-- Transcript is due on December 3, 2018;
-- Appellants Abbey Lerman and Carmen Otero's opening brief is
due on January 11, 2019;
-- Appellee Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc.'s answering brief is due
on February 11, 2019; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants CARMEN OTERO and ABBEY LERMAN, as individuals
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, are represented by:
Robert Kenneth Friedl, Esq.
Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
Ryan Wu, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
E-mail: robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com
Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com
Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com
Defendant-Appellee ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
is represented by:
Steven Feldman, Esq.
HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
523 West 6th Street, Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (949) 697-8763
Facsimile: (949) 495-5642
E-mail: steve@feldmanlc.com
- and -
John Charles Hueston, Esq.
HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1300
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 226-6740
Facsimile: (866) 775-0898
E-mail: jhueston@hueston.com
ZUMIEZ INC: Appeal in Herrera Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Zumiez Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 4,
2018, that the appeal in the putative class action lawsuit
initiated by Alexandra Bernal but carried on by Alexia Herrera
remains pending.
A putative class action, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against the
company in the Eastern District Count of California, Sacramento
Division under case number 2:16-cv-01802-SB in August 2016.
Alexandra Bernal filed the initial complaint and then in October
2016 added Alexia Herrera as a named plaintiff and Alexandra Bernal
left the case.
The putative class action lawsuit against the company alleges,
among other things, various violations of California's wage and
hour laws, including alleged violations of failure to pay reporting
time. In May 2017 the company moved for judgment on the pleadings
in that plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay should
fail as a matter of law as the plaintiff and the other putative
class members did not "report for work" with respect to certain
shifts on which the plaintiff’s claims are based. In August 2017,
the court denied the motion.
However, in October 2017 the district court certified the order
denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings for immediate
interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. The company then filed a petition for permission to
appeal the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
which petition was then granted in January 2018.
The company's opening appellate brief was filed on June 6, 2018 and
the plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed August 6, 2018.
The company's reply brief to the Plaintiff's answering appellate
brief is due on September 26, 2017.
Zumiez said, "Given the current status of this case, we are unable
to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome
is adverse, to estimate an amount, or range, of reasonably possible
loss. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do
so."
Zumiez Inc., founded in 1978, is a mall-based specialty retailer
providing sports-related apparel, footwear, equipment, and
accessories. The company is based in Lynnwood, Washington.
[*] U.S. Retail Brokerage Industry Faces Probe Amid Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zacks Equity Research reports that for the past few years,
regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which
regulates brokerage firms, have been probing into how retail
customers' orders are routed, executed, and filled by the brokerage
firms.
In August 2017, collecting information related to such practices,
Massachusetts' top securities regulator of FINRA initiated an
investigation over the matter.
Notably, the U.S. Treasury Department expressed its concern in the
October 2017 blueprint released for streamlining financial
regulations. The department was concerned related to payments to
brokerages which "may create misaligned incentives" for brokers and
their customers. Therefore, the SEC had been requested to increase
regulations and disclosures for the firms related to such
payments.
The SEC was probing whether retail customers received the best
prices and if there was proper execution of their trades. Also, the
law enforcement agency was looking into the cash fees, received by
brokerage firms from stock exchanges and other trading firms, for
routing retail investors' order through them.
Therefore, this March, the SEC proposed to temporarily restrict fee
and rebate payments of stock exchanges, and notice the impact of
such move on clients' order routing and trade execution quality.
Following this, last week, an agency has been moved on with the
proposal to make the stock market more transparent and fair for
clients, on demand of an SEC commissioner.
On increased scrutiny over brokerages' handling of customer orders,
recently, Judge Joseph Bataillon, in the federal court in Omaha,
NE, granted his consent for a class-action lawsuit against one of
the largest U.S. discount brokerage firms, TD Ameritrade Holding
Corporation. This firm was alleged for breaching its duty in
serving customers with best execution of orders.
Per the plaintiffs, in order to earn more profits and gain
incentives from stock exchanges and large electronic trading firms,
TD Ameritrade routed clients' orders to these firms. This, in turn,
deprived customers from getting the best prices available, referred
as "best execution".
In his ruling, the judge referred to "serious and credible
allegations of securities fraud" which is expected from the
company's order routing practices. Per the spokeswoman of TD
Ameritrade, the company disagreed with the judge and intends to
appeal the ruling.
The SEC regulations permit the practice of 'payment for order flow'
as long as these are clearly disclosed. The rules related to
getting the best possible price in the shortest duration must also
be revealed properly.
Therefore, acceptance of incentives for order flow has resulted in
various litigation cases. Notably, The Charles Schwab Corporation
and E*TRADE Financial Corporation are also under the purview of
lawsuits seeking class-action status similar to TD Ameritrade.
Conclusion
In the last few years, the SEC has taken enforcement actions
against brokerage firms, including Scottrade Inc. and Morgan
Stanley, for their alleged violation of disclosure norms and other
issues.
Nevertheless, we cannot state for sure that the aforesaid
investigation against brokerage firms will lead to any enforcement
actions. However, even if no actions are taken, we believe this
probe will make brokerage firms cautious about complying with the
rules and revealing all necessary disclosures to retail investors.
Among the above-mentioned stocks, TD Ameritrade, Schwab and E*TRADE
currently carry a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***